jump to last post 1-31 of 31 discussions (207 posts)

Was Moses a myth?

  1. iantoPF profile image85
    iantoPFposted 6 years ago

    I enjoy researching subjects and I tend to read a lot of stuff that some might find boring, but I can't find independent evidence of the existence of Moses outside of a few chapters in the Bible and the tradition of his existence.
    Egyptian history has no reference to the seven plagues including the killing of their firstborn and no record of a slave revolt and the army being lost in pursuit.
    So does anyone have any evidence anywhere that Moses is more than just a myth?

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this




      Logical deduction points to Moses being a myth.

      1. profile image0
        linsm76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, lets leave Moses alone a minute:

        CAMERAS did not exist in Washingtons time, nor Jeffersons time, so how do we know Washington crossed the river, or Jefferson and others wrote the Constitution, or any of the battles, or events that are claimed to happen back then actually happened.  SHOW US THE PROOF.

        1. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Are you saying that the possibility of Moses splitting the Red Sea, is just as probable as Washington crossing the Delaware?
          Right!

          Washington was not reported to have used magic to cross the Delaware, however Moses did use magic while reportedly crossing the Red Sea.  One story sounds like a fairytale, and the other sounds like actual events.

          We can't, ABSOLUTELY, know if anything really happened that we didn't witness, but if something makes no sense to my critical analysis, it is to be relegated to the absurd.

          The more reasonable stories will, at least, be given some respect--as they, do, have the basis of reality as their backdrop.

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well the "Red Sea" is wrong.  It is a misinterpretation of ancient Hebrew writting. 

            The place said to have been parted originally written in ancient Hebrew, which is quite different from modern day Hebrew said the place was, is Yam Suph.  Which was located at the Nile river's delta, and the Ballah Lake prior to the cutting of the Suez canal in 1859–1860.
            http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=58_5.jpg
            Needless to say, that area in 13th century bce was known as the Reed Sea.   So technically- according to ancient Hebrew text- Moses parted the Yam Suph, essentially the Reed Sea.  Which again is located at the Northeastern mouth of the Nile.  Something else that most people forget to point out, which I think is more important than the parting of the sea, is that the area was suppose to have had a natural spring.  Therefore named Ayun Musa, Spring of Moses, as written in Exodus 15:27.

            http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=58_8.jpg

            This area here in Eygpt is a picture of Ayun Musa.  Needless to say it is located exactly where it is suppose to be, as told in the bible.  Which is at the northeast shore of the Gulf of Suez, the Elim of Exodus.

            Exodus 15:27,  "Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees, and they camped there near the water."  This place is Ayun Musa.  It has been called this for more than two thousand years.

            There maybe no written word of this, but, the fact that there is linguistic evidence dating back thousands of years, cannot be ignore.  Its not like we are dealing with people that have open access to the outside world.  The area was so named this by their ancient ancestors for a reason.  The fact that the word Moses is embedded into their everyday language tells us something big occurred.

            Now is this proof there is a God?  Which I assume is the main reason for the discussion........, no in my opinion it doesn't.  It only proves that a mystical man named Moses, once slept and crossed into a new world there.  That is all it tell us. 

            Proving or disproving biblical stories, does not prove or disprove God.  It only proves what is written, that is it.  Nothing more.

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Before I go out side and accomplish something in my honey-do  BOOK  I want to say that you always offer us a plate of wisdom.  I am eating mine and wanted to say thank you.

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you.  That is the nicest compliment I have ever received.  Thank you for making my day.smile

            2. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              So there is not enough evidence to assume that a man named Moses parted the waters, while exiting from Egypt...or are you saying their is enough evidence to take a leap of faith?

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                My evidence is researchable and factual.  So what does faith have to do with anything? 

                You do realize that there has been recent archaeological, infra red satellite imaging done on that region, proving that there was once a tsunami there. Or rather there is evidence to that of a "tsunami wake effect" occurring in that region.  They found it while researching platonic movement associated super sonic volocanic eruptions.  So what does that fact have to do with faith?  It's fact.

                Better yet though is the recent soil samples taken from that region, that date the odd, but natural occurring disaster to have taken place around the same time frame of the Biblical Moses.  Again facts, nothing to do with faith.

                Now did Moses part the waters with a magic wand?  Well, I wasn't there.  However, I have seen stranger things happen.  Things that are a direct result of a natural disaster, combining together with human error or ingenuity, if you will.   Take the recent Gulf oil spill.  Hurricane winds damage the rig, which is made by man, and a man makes 1 fatal error, and that one single person, single handily causes billions of gallon of crude oil to spill out.  1 man, 1 error, many little other natural disasters helping it along the way= strange things. 

                My commenting has has everything to do with the fact that one hubber writes there is no archaeological proof.  Well that's a lie, there is plenty.  And, or that Moses was a myth.  Well that apparently isn't true either.  He is definitely more than just a myth.  We have evidence that there he was an actual living man.  But, from reading many of your all's positions and comments, you all think he is a myth because of it's biblical account. So many of you offer up just your bias opinions.
                Well, here I am...... offering you up facts. 

                Here is a recap:
                1. A spot with 12 natural springs, and 70 known palm trees which are still visible today, located in a region were a man name Mose could have slept.
                2. Factual linguistic history, dating back thousands of years, to the Spring of Moses, and Reed Sea, supporting/corresponding to Moses.  The place was named Ayun Musa thousand of years ago.  You tell me what that means.  Ayun Musa means Spring of Moses.  It doesn't mean Spring of God, Spring of Fred..., it means Spring of Moses. 
                3. Evidence that is very researchable, pertaining to the fact that some strange volcanic force swept sediment into that region, that could have only occurred if the waters would have parted somehow.  Well waters part all the time in the event of a tsunami.  Whatever happened in that region,  caused parts of the Nile, Reed Sea and the Ballah Lake to back up in a tsunami fashion, and left behind scarred earth of the event.  Ancient land masses don't lie.

                This is what I'm offering you.  Again, nothing to do with faith.

                Was he real?  You tell me..........., give me some facts to dispute it.

                That's all I'm saying.  I of course think he existed.  I believe the facts.  They may not be as big as the pyramid of Egypt is, but, they are indisputable findings.  At least that is how I see them.  Why was that region named the Spring of Moses?  Well why?  Where did they come up with that particular name?  Those are the kind of questions I now want to know.  Its a given for me that Moses existed, but, did he carry a stick or wave a magical wand,  I couldn't tell ya.smile

                1. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It is possible that someone named Moses did exist in the past, but what are the implications?

                  I can admit that there could be evidence that Moses existed, and that would answer the OP.

                  But I assumed the OP was implying that Moses existed exactly as the bible states.  The embellished story is the myth.

            3. luv2wander profile image60
              luv2wanderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I am totally impressed you have factually done your homework for you are absolutely correct. Yet Moses only parted the waters by Gods authority. God' miraculous will is what parted the waters. No man has the abilty to create such a feat. The relationship Moses had with god is one we all should have and because he did have this loyal relationship god did not let him down as it is said so many times. God is there to protect, heal, to make perfect... God has promised and stands by all he said he will do.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Including murder anyone who did not follow him apparently!
                What a crock!

                1. Jerami profile image77
                  Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This isn't an exact comparison  BUT   If you were trying to build a world order and someone kept trying to tear it down as fast as you put it up....  What could you do?

                     And after you had built it  the grizzly bears started moving in? ...  Or you wanted to live in the bears cave?.
                     What do ya do?
                     
                    Remember these people were coming out of the stone age.

                    How can you make that transition to a civilized world from the stone age but to do away with that past system?

                     This isn't a finished train of thought and necessarily my opinion, but just something to think about.

                     I will check back in later,  for now I gotta go to work.

                  1. Rishy Rich profile image80
                    Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I need to correct few points.

                    If you were trying to build a world order and someone kept trying to tear it down as fast as you put it up....  What could you do?

                    1. Instead of sending ten plagues & killing thousands of innocent Egyptian women & children, who had nothing to do with Egyptian slavery policy, God could simply replace Pharaoh & put Moses & his followers in his place. Moses as the king & his followers in the power, would have saved all those innocent Egyptian lives. A bloodless revolution might have made Yahweh's image much better today.


                    -  How can you make that transition to a civilized world from the stone age but to do away with that past system?

                    2. Egyptians were highly Civilized, Israelites were not. So killing down the Egyptians & building a world order with Israelites was like going back to Cave man culture from Civilized system. Your point is flawed & opposite.

                    3. Theres no evidence that Egyptians had an inhuman brutal Slavery policy . Theres not a single bit of evidence!! In fact, latest findings prove they used architects & well paid & well fed skilled workers for their construction works. Bodies of those workers have been found near most construction sites. Not only mummified, they are also packed with lots of cloths, ornaments & daily necessities for their after life. You dont think an Israelite tortured slave would be mummified in the first place & then given so many things for their happy afterlife??

                    4. Whoever this Yahweh is, it was not an Universal God & obviously it did not plan to change the world order! Because an all powerful God with an intention to change world order would have done more interference in most parts of the world rather limiting himself with one of the most backward & illiterate race of that time.

        2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          excellent point.

    2. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is no evidence of the Exodus, the plagues or Moses. Another bedtime fairy tale meant to scare kiddies, evidently. smile

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is not evidence that Beelzedad exist.

    3. profile image61
      mitchellaneoustopposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        you know communists could not come with moral codex, they just copied the Ten Commandments and removed God from it.

    4. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Umm, your information is incorrect.

      In 1947 archaeologist Henri Chevrier found pieces of a broken stone monument - or stela that dated to a Pharaoh named Ahmose, around 1500 bce, which is before the Common Era, and B.C.E. Incredibly, the Ahmose stela is covered in hieroglyphic inscriptions that mirror the Biblical tale precisely.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And again......... there is actual archaeological evidence that supports the event.  It is pretty hard to dispute concrete evidence. 

        The Moses story is clearly more than just a myth.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          thanks for comments Intimat...
          It is difficult to dispute with uneducated  person, so called atheists.

      2. peterxdunn profile image60
        peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        'Incredibly, the Ahmose stela is covered in hieroglyphic inscriptions that mirror the Biblical tale precisely.' IntimatEvolution.

        That dovetails nicely with the view of quite a few scholars: some of whom are secular Jews, that believe the Old Testament is a narrative 'borrowed' from EGYPTIAN HISTORY - mainly by a scribe, with tendency to plagiarism, called Ezra.

    5. profile image0
      linsm76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I just love posts and comments like this.

      My Response:  As a believer, I am tired of nonbelievers who want us to prove our beliefs.

      It is about time, nonbelievers prove their lies are the truth.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Very well written.  I think you might be onto something here.

      2. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And in what world does an imaginary god become real?

        In reality it doesn't exist. Does it exist outside of reality? Who knows. What is known, is that whatever you want to called it/he/she or god, does not exist in reality.

        All reality is knowable. That means, all of reality, at this present stage is known. When something new is discovered then it will come into reality.

        You don't demand- want non-believers to PROVE a negative. It cannot be done and any rational thinker would know this.

        What is known- no god exists in reality. Now- if you want to bring into reality the concept of "god", then it must be real and verified.

        Got it? I hope so. hmm

      3. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree. Non-believers are not trying to sell others the idea that they have a personal relationship with an invisible being from a 2,000 year old myth who is going to judge mankind. lol

        Not believing in the tooth fairy does not require proof either.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          have you ever seen your brain?

    6. profile image0
      linsm76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, because God said so, that is how we know.

    7. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Many Biblical scholars are comming to this very conclusion ianto; they have no physical evidence but pieces of some of the stone tablets partialy engraved. and not enough to support the story.

      it is un-proven at this time in our history.

    8. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have any facts about evolution?

    9. peterxdunn profile image60
      peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Recent archaeological discoveries in Israel: clay tablets with cuniform script detailing the findings of a court based on the Codex Hammurabi, prove that 'the Law of Moses' arrived in Israel before the Israelites of the Exodus. The laws of Moses - as set out in Deuteronomy - were copied from Hammurabi's codex (a Babylonian king - see pic) just as the ten commandments were copied from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

      The picture is of a seven foot tall stelae with the Codex Hammurabi engraved upon it - the finger nail panel depicts Hammurabi sat upon his throne of judgement. Was this, also, the 'finger of God' that wrote the ten commandments?

      The upshot of all this is that Moses was a myth. Case closed.

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4068857.jpg

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So - this is the picture of the actual finger that god gave to humanity as he left ? big_smile

        1. peterxdunn profile image60
          peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You could say that (but not to a Christian 'cos they have no sense of humour).

      2. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        sorry, but this proves nothing! 

        1. the photo could be a fake
        2. the pillar could be a fake
        3. the pillar might not have anything carved on it, after all
        4. just because the pillar may "exist" does not prove it may have "existed" before the Exodus
        5. When was this "pillar" created?  How is it proven, or known, to have existed before the Exodus?
        6. If the 10 Commandments are truly recorded in more than one place, not one of them can prove which came first simply by existing.  (not saying it isn't true, just that I haven't heard this before)

        1. peterxdunn profile image60
          peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The photo was taken in a museum (maybe it was a fake museum).

          The pillar was originally engraved in ancient Babylon where the Jews would have seen it whilst in captivity there. It was also, at some point, carried off as war booty to the place which became the setting for the 'Daniel in the lion's den' episode in the Bible (can't think of the place offhand).

          The clay tablets I am describing have also been proven, archaeologically, to predate the destruction of the Canaanite city of Jericho.

          The Bible isn't history - it isn't even close - get used to it.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            no reason to be rude!  sheesh!!


            I'm no historian so I can't even begin to argue which came first, however, I am still shrewd enough to believe neither copy of the 10 Commandments can prove a prior existence simply by existing. 

            You're saying that carbon dating has proven this clay pillar to predate the stone tablets, right?  I'll believe it when the stone tablets have been found and carbon dated in order to substantiate your claims.

            (I'm really rather skeptical about carbon dating, but if it corresponds with whats in the Bible, and other recorded history, I'll be willing to believe it)

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Your last sentence is very telling, Rafini!  Carbon dating is accurate, but only within a certain number of years.

              But you would be willing to believe in it if the results agree with the bible.  See what influence ancient superstitions have over you and others?  Modern science trumped by the myths of ancient men!  Just wondering, did you inherit your religion, or did you examine others and choose it on your own?

              1. peterxdunn profile image60
                peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Rafini

                I'm sorry if you thought me rude - it wasn't my intention.

                Some points.

                The pillar isn't made of clay - its made of stone (it also exists in the real world - whereas the ten commandments: which would constitute the most important artefacts ever created if ever they actually existed, do not).

                The reign of King Hammurabi is a matter of documented, historical record and doesn't require carbon dating to validate it.

                The evidence for the Egyptian Book of the Dead predating anything written in the Bible: including Genesis (which was first written down - from oral traditions - during the Babylonian captivity), is so overwhelming that I doubt that even the Pope, himself, would dispute it.

                ps good luck with your book.

                regards

                peterxdunn

              2. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Randy, Randy, Randy....tsk, tsk, tsk.


                My last sentence does not say I will only believe carbon dating if it agrees with the Bible. 

                What it does say is this:  If carbon dating would correspond with the Bible and other recorded history, I'd be willing to believe it.


                From what I remember, the Bible and recorded histories pretty much agree with each other, chronologically anyway, and the only discrepancy, really, is how old is Earth and what are the origins of Earth & all species?


                As for my "religion"....I don't believe in organized religion.  I live by, and believe in God according to, Faith and Spirituality.

      3. RKHenry profile image80
        RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This looks like an overgrown, grape Popsicle. yum.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Grape popsicle? I thought it was White chocolate.

          1. RKHenry profile image80
            RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Say what?  White chocolate, dude you're colored blind.  That's a grape Popsicle forsure.

            1. peterxdunn profile image60
              peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Try sucking on it.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image24
                Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Finger of god, yeh.

                Is that God flipping us the finger?

                1. peterxdunn profile image60
                  peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A non-existent god would possess non-existent fingers - so that non-existent finger can only be flipped at those that believe in the finger; if you see what I mean. This leaves us with a problem - because those that believe in the finger cannot see that it is being flipped at them.

                  Logic can take you to some strange places.

    10. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If Moses were not real then how is it he is recorded in History books?

      1. peterxdunn profile image60
        peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He isn't - at least - he isn't in school history books found in schools outside the Bible belt.

    11. pjk_artist profile image80
      pjk_artistposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Moses was not a man.  Moses is a state of mind which any man may enter.  The bible is not a history book, its a story book.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and a plagiarized one at that! smile

    12. shazwellyn profile image83
      shazwellynposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Egyptian history has no reference to the seven plagues including the killing of their firstborn and no record of a slave revolt and the army being lost in pursuit - wrong, see my post below!

    13. profile image0
      linsm76posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Archeologists, those who have found horse bones, wheels and evidence of ancient chariots at the bottom of the sea.

      What I find interesting in these forums is:

      You will believe in ancient Pyramids
      You will believe in ancient civilizations
      You will believe in anything, we can no longer see, no know anyone who lived thousands of years ago.

      But, when it comes to God, or the bible, you want physical proof.  You would not believe that either, more than likely.

      Yet, nonbelievers post more in these forums about
      God than any other.  INTERESTING

  2. kess profile image61
    kessposted 6 years ago

    start researching jewish historuc writings.

    note . the jewish scriptures are most likely the most reliable historic document one can have.

    1. iantoPF profile image85
      iantoPFposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      I have to disagree with this remark. In many instances the Hebrew scriptures are most unreliable. Even if there were no discrepancies credible research requires more than one source to verify an event.
      Kess; you are making a statement of faith, I respect that but I am looking for something more substantial.

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think this has been covered before - in the thread which discusses that there is no physical evidence or outside source for the existence of even jesus.

        The Moses story is very relevant though - because there is (as you say) NO evidence among existing contemporary records about wheat storage, levels of the River Nile, political news etc, that talks about an event as big as the death of all firstborn children !  It would appear never to have happened and so what reliability the ancient books have as even a historic document is in question - as a matter of fact not just opinion.

      2. kess profile image61
        kessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ian not because there is a misuse of a thing does not mean  that it is not useful. do not allow your bias ti lead you astray. Since you insist on reading and researching, spend some time perusing the Jewish records. you can spend an entire lifetime  on reading material that should lead you the one conclusion.

        1. Rishy Rich profile image80
          Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What makes you think that Jewish scriptures are the most reliable historic document? Is there any logic behind it? or Is it just your biased faith?

        2. iantoPF profile image85
          iantoPFposted 6 years ago in reply to this


          I'm researching the origin of Judaism and I began with the assumption that Moses did exist. The tradition is that strong. However I cannot find evidence from that period, or referring to that period from any other source.
          On the contrary. The jewish passover feast the "Seder" talks about the flight from Israel but does not mention Moses. There is an empty chair at the Seder but that is for Elijah. The oldest Jewish community in India, the Cochin Jews whose settlement dated from around 500BC, had no knowledge of Moses only of Elijah. Until Jewish scholars taught them otherwise that is.
          Even Jewish writing and tradition can be ambigous on this. So does anyone have any evidence that Moses existed?

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Archaelogical studies have more or less shown that the Exodus could not possibly have occurred.

            A million people or so travelling for decades would have left very evident traces - if only middens - and none have been found.

            What's more, if we really think about this. We should be glad that the stories are mythical.

            Because The accounts of Moses include the first acts of genocide in human history, and the only ones that claim to have been complete.

            Achieving a goal of exterminating a race as Moses did the Midianites for instance.

            For a true reference to this, consider that the Jews still live on Earth, But the Midianites are extinct. So we can presume this was a deliberate act of genocide, by Biblical account..!

          2. peterxdunn profile image60
            peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you want to research the origins of Judaism you should have a look at 'the shepherd kings' or Hyskos (I might have misspelt that - Hyksos maybe) people. Quite a few historical scholars are looking at this area of research as it is suspected that this tribe of nomadic  herdsmen went on to become 'the children of Israel' after they were driven out of Egypt.

        3. profile image0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes - Ian to PF !  that is how to read all that 'stuff' - decide the conclusion and then do the research to get you there. big_smile

      3. peterxdunn profile image60
        peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Old Testament is an extremely dubious document from the outset. Take Genesis for instance - Eve is created twice - we get the statement, 'there were giants in the land in those days' without any further explanation - we also have the son's of god (?) being attracted to the daughter's of men when the only women created thus far was Eve. And who were all those people in the land of Nod?

    2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      absolutely right.

  3. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Was moses a myth?
    Who knows?
    It's all a guess.

  4. Son Of Hamza profile image59
    Son Of Hamzaposted 6 years ago

    No Moses was a prophet  who was born in Egypt
    his story is mentioned in the Quran

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Outside of religion. Or did you not catch that? hmm

  5. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    rant.

  6. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    unsettled.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    try me

  8. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    Sry, go ahead.

  9. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    The story of Moses is a self evident myth.

    Or did the bible mean to tell us he parted his hair, not the red sea?

    Makes as much sense as the Noah story, which I find hilarious! smile

    1. Son Of Hamza profile image59
      Son Of Hamzaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      which bible there are more than one ?

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is of little consequence which bible or tome. They all believe in an invisible ridiculous entity who although supposedly omnipotent, loses it's temper like a 3 year old and wipes out it's own creation for not believing. Totally psychotic all of them. smile

    2. profile image60
      bjphillposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      According to computer simulations, the parting of the red sea is scientifically possible. Don't take my word for it, google it. The cool thing about it is, a strong wind would have to blow all night, which is exactly what the Bible says happened. So, either the men of biblical times knew as much about science as we do, without using computers, or ...it actually happened.

      1. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This wishful thinking is desperate and absurd.

        1. profile image60
          bjphillposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It has been proven that it could happen! Do the research. It is more likely for this to have happened than for evolution to have taken place, but you probably believe in evolution anyway. Dr Carl Sagan, an evolutionist, admits that the possiblility of life happening by chance is about 1 on 1*10^2,000,000,000. One followed by two billion zeros is quite a huge number, and these are extremely poor odds... yet you choose to believe it. It has been proven by science that the red sea could have parted, and I choose to believe it.

          1. profile image60
            bjphillposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            <1 to 1*10^2,000,000,000>

          2. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is putting one's imagination on par with reality.

            We have physical proof of life, so the odds do not matter, now.
            What matters now is:  will man choose logic courage and integrity OR fear dishonesty and nonsense?


            The parting of the Red Sea is only hearsay from a 3000 year old text.  It is only in the imagination.  I choose to be honest and dismiss this as a myth.  It is ABSURD.

            1. Aficionada profile image94
              Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              The information provided in the following links is unproven and includes a lot of speculation.  But it should at least give you some reasons (the pictures) to reconsider your unquestioning bias.

              http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/ … wheels.htm
              http://www.snopes.com/religion/redsea.asp

              1. getitrite profile image80
                getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                This is irrelevant nonsense.

                I can't believe that you are proposing such absurd unproven evidence to support willful ignorant.

                This is surely desperate.  You are trying to arrange your facts around your conclusion.

                1. Aficionada profile image94
                  Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                  Pot, meet kettle.  big_smile   

                  (Umm,  PS - Try proofreading your posts, if you want to sound more convincing.)

                  1. getitrite profile image80
                    getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't need any advice from you.  Everyone makes the occasional typo.    The fact is, you are proposing nothing but nonsense, so you have to resort to childish personal attacks, trying your best to find a personal weakness, and thinking that it will, somehow, change the veracity of a 3000 year old lie. 

                    Your edit of my post has found nothing relevant to this debate--just like the other nonsense you are proposing. 

                    Absolutely absurd.

      2. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        kewl. cool

  10. pylos26 profile image77
    pylos26posted 6 years ago

    First we are told that it is a piece of a stone monument...and then we are told that it is concrete...what the @$&%$@*%.

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's so funny.....roll

  11. paradigmsearch profile image86
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    close poker.

  12. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Well I enjoyed learning a bit more about the history of this place, and my research indicates that your conclusions about the place are correct. Thanks for this, it is very interesting.

  13. IntimatEvolution profile image82
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Thanks!  I love biblical history.  I watch shows about it all the time, read books and all that good stuff.

    I might be one of those Jesus freaks, who believes in Christ because she was raised to believe, but, I do appreciate facts and history. 

    I also always find it quite impressive how a single character/person in history, could make such a dramatic impact on the world. I'm also a huge fan of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Winston Churchill, Peter the Great, just to name a few.smile 

    I think it is amazing how one person, can lead a nation.  Imagine the courage it takes to be that person.  I admire that.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I also enjoy history, any part of it, and like to learn more when I can. Thanks for the history lesson. smile

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
        Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi IntimaEvolution, I love biblical history also. Thanks for sharing incredible information. I believe the facts. Moses truly exist, and he is not a myth.

  14. IntimatEvolution profile image82
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Your welcome....

  15. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    earnestshub wrote:
    I disagree. Non-believers are not trying to sell others the idea that they have a personal relationship with an invisible being from a 2,000 year old myth who is going to judge mankind.

    Not believing in the tooth fairy does not require proof either.
    ==========

      This is just my thoughts,   but ...I think that the process of being judged will be something nore like judging Apples after picking.

       Didn't have to watch it grow every minute to see if it did something wrong.  It will be more like being looked at to see what kind of condition our soul in in.
       Will it be to the fruit stand or to the processing plant for apple juice.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Reading the "good book" I think it may be a bit harsher than that! lol lol lol

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How does that song go?    If you don't know me by now, you will never never know me.

           And as Debra said in one of these threads.

           I don't necessarily believe every tiny bit of the NT
          And as you have said many times...  Goat herders wrote the OT down as best as they knew how.  (disregard that last comment)

          Translators can't translate without imposing their interpretations upon what they translate ... don't ya know. 

          I go for the meat and taters my self, and spit out the broccoli.   You know how we are?

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I never believe things that have a blatant agenda of hate like the OT, or "You can be loved if" like the NT

          It is self evidently nonsense designed to control others but not at all sophisticated.

          Any child who picks up a copy of "I'm OK your OK" which is  transactional analysis for kids would not be bothered with either of these methods of control and see straight through them. smile

          1. hanging out profile image60
            hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            all unsaved love if...... all unsaved hate if...... its natural, are people not natural? I think you are very natural. The only thing you can't offer anyone is a room in your house forever and ever unless they meet certain criteria. This is natural too.
            There are many self help books but they do not offer salvation they only tell a person how to become more entwined in the world which buddah said was illusion and christ said was a waste of time.

  16. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    This is an interesting topic!  I don't usually reply to the religion forums, but I have a thought to share:


    Has anyone considered the fact that the Pharoe didn't believe in God to begin with?  Therefore, he refused to believe God acted through Moses, and refused to accept the God of Moses as being the one and only, true God who was more capable than his magicians. 

    The Pharoe was in denial, therefore would refuse to record events as they actually happened.  He'd choose to record events some other way, as a lie for posterity.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, where did everybody go....?


      I was looking forward to a discussion on this theory.....has it already been dismissed or something?

      1. Son Of Hamza profile image59
        Son Of Hamzaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        your speech is partially correct

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I had signed out to shower.

           You have a good point! if these things had occured under My watch; I wouldn't want this mistake to be written down for everyone to know FOReverrr .

      3. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        oh, okay. 

        I was most impressed with IE's facts in this thread - first time I'd heard about Tsunami's in the Red Sea.  I think it's remarkable that the evidence can still be seen.

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I got this from watching a program on History channel.

             All of the plagues upon Egypt can be explained with a small earthquake which release gasses that in polluting the water aquifers turning surface waters red.

             This kills all the fish. Frogs being amphibious flee from the polluted waters upon the dry land. Being aquatic frogs they soon die from exposure from the sun.
             Now ya got fly infestation.  And locust eat the crops   
          Now with food shortages the eldest sons get the lions portion of the wheat that is toxic with all the bacteria transported from the dead frogs by the flys.  The eldest sons dies.

            Another earthquake occurred out in the ocean during this time. It would have been related with the earlier on but different.

            A Tsunami as it neared the shores drew the waters back into the sea as seen in the Indian ocean.  And then came rushing back inland.

            It was a long time ago that I saw this show, and this is the best that I can explain it such as my memory dictates.

          This is the Tsunami that Intimate E  was speaking of.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting!  All quite logical, too.  But, it still makes one wonder why it would be recorded in the Bible as an act of God, through Moses, but not mentioned anywhere in Egyptian history.

          2. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not to disregard what the program can prove, but, if the earthquake/Tsunami from the time of Moses released gasses which turned the water red, why didn't the same thing happen with recent earthquake/Tsunami's?  Or, why doesn't the same thing happen every time there's an earthquake?  Why did that particular earthquake release gasses to turn the water red?

            Any ideas?

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever history might tell, Moses probably was not his Egyptian name.  Therefore would not easily be found, if it was recorded. 
                I don't know,   Are there ANY records of ANY  earthquakes, famine or plagues of locust  recorded in their hieroglyphics
                 I have always assumed that if they did make any other written records, the parchments that they would have been writton on has turned to dust long long ago.

                 Other than written in stone,  are there ANY written records?   Of anything?  from that era?

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The OP says Egyptian records make no reference to the 7 plagues, slave revolt or losing an army, and that's what I was basing my question on.  I would also have to believe had the hieroglyphics shown a record of Moses and the events surrounding the Exodus we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                What you say about parchments could be correct, however, haven't the Dead Sea Scrolls proven parchment could survive to modern times?  Perhaps only in an airtight capacity, though. 

                Good point!  Moses was probably his Hebrew name.

                1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                  IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry but you all are wrong about Moses not being an Egyptian name. Moses is an Egyptian name.  Its not Hebrew at all.  Moses in Hebrew is Moshe (מֹשֶׁה).

                  Another point that is mistaken; the dead sea scrolls were written on Papyrus or animal skin, not parchment.  Papyrus or hides.

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    thanks for clarifying.

          3. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is one of the many different resources I used in my own research.  I saw the Exodus Decoded back in 2006.  But recent discoveries have only now connected the dots.  I use lots of different resources.  Relying on only 1 TV program, or 1 book, or 1 online resource is a dangerous thing.  I recommend using many different resources, and adding up all the pieces that work together.  Back to work, have a great afternoon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions … es_1.shtml.

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks I will check that link out.   Just stopped in at the house for a few minutes.
                 Gotta get back to work.

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You have to becareful when using the Naked Archaeologist, Jacobovici as a reference tool.  He has a tendency to bend the truth a bit.  I generally learn more from people debunking his biblical hypothesis's, than I get from what he says is true. 

                Furthermore, his hypothesis about the parting of the Reed Sea was that a super mega volcano erupted somewhere in Greece, which set off a series of earthquakes under the ocean floor.  In fact it appears he was onto something, because a recent study shows there was in fact volcanic shards from the eruption, found in the Nile's delta.

                Here is the link to the study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 733a0.html
                Note its published date.........., 1986.  So this research has been going on for a very long while.

                Something happen........., and apparently the evidence points to the fact that in the audience of this wonder, stood a man named Moses.

                1. Jerami profile image77
                  Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks again  ...  being raised out in the country ,   ya learn whatcya gotta step over on the way to the well house when all ya want is a drink of watter.

                     I better shudup now sinse My hillbilly is coming out so strong.  Sometimes I feel kinda like what I think my gradnpappy musta felt like   ...    and wanna sound likum.

                    I might be back in a bit when I get over it!

                  1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
                    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    ?

          4. Aficionada profile image94
            Aficionadaposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            Jerami, I remember seeing this same show; it was shown around Passover and Easter, so that would be the most likely time to see the actual program again - but of course it's quite likely that someone has posted it on YouTube. It was really fascinating to see the way one problem set up the conditions that would lead to another one.

            A couple of details that I remember (or think I remember, anyway smile ) -

            Wasn't the red in the water caused by a kind of algae from that part of the world that grew much more rapidly or at least more prolifically, due to the changes in the water levels or other disruptions caused by the seismic events? - and that (algae) killed the fish.

            I thought the death of the firstborns was due to a kind of fungus or rot of some kind in the wheat (yes, they did get the lion's share because of being the oldest).  I forget the reason why the wheat got the rot.  Maybe it was some that was left over from previous years' harvest?  And since the locusts ate the recent crop, they had to dig in to the older supplies?   Your explanation of the bacteria from the flies makes a lot of sense, but for some reason I had thought there was something a bit weirder about the wheat than that.  Goofy memory on my part, probably.

            Another interesting bit to follow, if anyone ever does additional research, is the conclusions by a man named Ron Wyatt (about 30+ years ago) that the sea crossing in the exodus actually took place across a high level of land in the Gulf of Aqaba.  Wyatt's work has not been verified, but there are some very fascinating photos of items on the floor of the Gulf that look a lot like chariot wheels. 

            If anyone has any more information about Wyatt's theories (including more scholarly explanation of a monument he said he found near the spot of the crossing) I would be interested in hearing it.  Some of the familiar debunking sites mention him and his claims - snopes, truthorfiction, etc.; I haven't looked at them all, but the ones I saw simply said "unverified" - not that Wyatt's claims have been proven false.

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Just checking in for a few minutes.

                I believe you were correct about their eating last years wheat (I think)  It was a few years since I watched that. 
                 It did make sense. 

                 How much embellishment to the story ??  Don't know""

                 Which came first the events or the story??  I don't know"

                  My self?  I hold to the messages written in RED.
              (Jesus said it)  second most believed messages said to have been given by God and Gabriel.

                  I mostly attempt to understand the rest of scriptures in a way as to agree with what Jesus, God, Gabriel are said to have said.

                 If these other stories are not related to these?  I don't worry about it much.   I don't think that believing these other stories, (Noah, Moses, etc) in the bible will be as important in the judgment if there is an actual judgment.

                 Back to bed in a few.

    2. peterxdunn profile image60
      peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Question -  two pharaohs appear in the exodus story: why aren't either of them named in the Bible? Wouldn't be to disguise the fact that neither of them were pharaohs for whom we have historical evidence would it?

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I would say you are on right on the money here!

        Many such omissions can be found in the contradictions that stand out like warts on a bum in the NT and OT. smile

      2. Rafini profile image87
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If the pharaohs aren't named, how do we know at least one was named Rameses?  (at least that's the name I've heard associated with the Exodus - the only pharaoh name I've heard)  One would think that if the Pharaoh's names weren't known, they would change with each and every retelling of the story, rather than stay the same. hmm

        1. peterxdunn profile image60
          peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Rafini

          You need to read exodus - neither of the pharaohs are actually named.

          Much of what we know as the Old Testament was written by a guy called Ezra during the Babylonian captivity (I'm talking about the original Hebrew version - not the later Greek translations done at Alexandria where the library was destroyed: and people torn limb from limb, by a rampaging Christian mob). Ezra: many secular scholars (including Jewish scholars) now believe, used two sources for his material - Jewish oral tradition and Egyptian history.

          There is even a theory - that I came across somewhere - that the figure of Moses is based upon an actual historical character called Sennenmut: who was an architect and steward at the court of the pharaoh Hapshepsut. Sennenmut - however - never left  Egypt: his intact tomb has been discovered with him still in it. His tomb is notable because on the ceiling there is a panel depicting the zodiac - this is the oldest known zodiac in existence. This zodiac depicts the figure of Isis: the Egyptian goddess (mother of Horus) who was represented in the heavens by the constellation of Virgo. If you read the Book of Revelation you will find that the constellation of Virgo is identified as representing the Virgin Mary (mother of Jesus/Horus).

          I'm afraid the documentary evidence is there for all to see - the Bible is a work of plagiarised fiction.

          1. Rafini profile image87
            Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is all very interesting.  Not really something I'm interested in looking into, however. hmm  (If I spent my time researching Biblical issues I'd most likely not do anything else!)

            But, I do feel the need to argue with your final statement.  If the Bible were a work of plagiarized fiction, that would mean it existed before it was written, and that doesn't make sense unless it meant it could only have existed as historical fact. hmm  (kinda like a fictionalized autobiography - truth and fiction, mixed)

            Just something to think about....

            1. peterxdunn profile image60
              peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The point is the Bible - all of it - is a mish mash of pre-existing material that was copied and/or adapted to suit the purposes/interests of certain elite groups of people. The Old Testament is, in effect, the justification for the Israelites seizure - by force - of the lands of Judea and Israel. The Jews would argue, of course, that these were the lands 'promised' them by God. The truth is that they slaughtered tens of thousands of people to take control of these lands. The Old Testament also supported the power of the  ruling elites: the kings and priesthood, as it 'enshrined' their right to rule.

              The New Testament can be explained as an attempt: by a small group of radicals (probably Essenes), to seize control of Judaism from the old guard. These guys were not trying to inaugerate a 'new' religion'. They wanted to take control of Judaism and launch all out war against the Roman Empire - with Christ as their banner.

              The reason I think all of this is important is because the religious differences that stem back to those times - from today - are being exploited: by the oil interests/ banks/big money and their political stooges to start a religious war between Islam and Christianity.

              Witness - the banning of the veil in France, new laws concerning integration in Germany and the UK, no mosque building in Switzerland, a prominent right wing agenda in Holland (of all places) and, of course, the 'ban the madrassa' campaign in America.

              This war is already underway. It will be ratcheted up, by a huge margin, when the West attacks Iran and the Middle East explodes - the regional conflict will then become global.

              All of this for oil - to control the supply and distribution. All of this to consolidate the power and wealth of an elite few. All of this made possible by religion.

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You give me much to argue about, but I'll only stick to what I feel knowledgeable about.

                Okay, so the Old Testament is not to be considered an historical account of the known world, but rather as a written justification of Jewish Dominance?  Nice theory, but it must be understood as exactly that - a theory.  Seriously, who has the knowledge of it being anything but?  How did they come by that knowledge?  Were they there, as a witness, or is it speculation?

                I don't believe the New Testament was meant to bring about a new religion, but to reinforce the previous one.  Problem was, the people who needed the reinforcing rejected the idea and brought about the death of Jesus on the cross. 

                Religious differences don't need oil interests/banks/big money/political stooges to exploit them in order to create a religious war between Islam and Christianity.  All they need is someone like Osama bin Ladin, who feels justified in declaring a holy war just because he wants to. 

                As for what you mentioned regarding: France, Germany, the UK, Switzerland, and Holland...all I can say is this:  Intolerance breeds fear, and fear enforces poor judgment.

                'ban the maddrassa'?  no clue, so I'm guessing it isn't doing very well - America is a fairly tolerant country.

                As for the West attacking Iran and the Middle East exploding - can you be more specific?  The West, I believe, means the US.  The Middle East contains too many intermingled groups to lump all together.  (What country, exactly?  Islam?  Muslim?  Sunni?  Terrorists?  The Taliban?  Who are you referring to when you say, Middle East?)

                Throughout history the Middle East has had their regional conflicts.  I'm not a history buff, so I can't speak on any of it, but I think it's safe for me to say that outside a few times, their conflicts have pretty much been between themselves and not the rest of the world.  So what's to fear?  I don't think our world leaders will ever be able to put a stop to the conflicts of the Middle East - the most important thing is to manage them so they don't spill out into the rest of the world.  And it appears our world leaders understand this.

                All of this for oil???  You do realize these problems began long before the oil was discovered, right? 

                All of this to consolidate the power and wealth of an elite few???  I thought it was for oil....anyway, this argument is unsupported in your post. 

                All of this made possible by religion???  You can't be serious, can you?  I mean, sure religion is out there.  Sure, some religions are less tolerant of change/differences.  There are even some religions that promote violent behavior. (the ones that declare holy wars, or promote suicide missions - are they real religions?)  But seriously, someone who blames religion for peoples behavior is only looking for a scapegoat.  People are ultimately responsible for their own behavior, their religion isn't. 

                Just because the Bible tells me of Daniel in the Lions Den doesn't mean I should run over to the zoo and jump into the Lions Cage!!  That would be idiotic on my part!!  Don'tcha think? 

                People need to be held accountable for their actions. (only a physical being can cause a physical event)
                Religion cannot be held accountable for the actions of people. (a tangible event cannot be caused by an imperceptible belief)

                1. peterxdunn profile image60
                  peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Osama Bin Laden is probably dead. View the proof on youtube (click on link).

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg.

                  His family: who are business partners of the Bush family (of two American presidents fame) in the Carlyle group (the group that will be building an oil and a gas pipeline through Afghanistan [from the Caspian Sea] once the country has been 'stabilized') live a few miles away from CIA headquarters in Virginia.

                  If you go on the CIA website you will also find out that Osama Bin Laden is not being sought in connection with the 9/11 atrocity - they do not have any evidence to connect him with this event.

                  Now google this name 'Tim Osman".

                  I do not blame religion for wars. I am saying that belief in religion enables the people that invented that religion - and their inheritors: the power brokers of today - to manipulate the perceptions of those that do believe for their own interests.

                  The world is not how you percieve it to be - your perception of the world
                  is not your own - but rather how others would have you percieve the world. The rich and powerful would have you believe that there is no other way.

                  Religion equates with wilful ignorance. Simply accepting a world that allows millions to die through wars, famine and disease: because 'it is the will of God', is a dereliction of duty - it is a betrayal of our common humanity.

                  The coming war is not inevitable. It was not prophesied in the Book of Revelation: that war has already been fought and lost (AD 115 'the first Christian War") - it led, directly, to the diaspora.

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Now you're talking in circles. 

                    You didn't address any of my statements other than to say Osama bin Ladin is probably dead (That doesn't change anything about what I said - All they need is someone like Osama bin Ladin, who feels justified in declaring a holy war just because he wants to.)  And to claim the bin Ladin family and Bush family are business partners.  Where's the proof??  If you're going to make a claim such as that, you ought to be able to prove it.

                    You claim you do not blame religion for wars, when previously you said this:

                    The reason I think all of this is important is because the religious differences that stem back to those times - from today - are being exploited: by the oil interests/ banks/big money and their political stooges to start a religious war between Islam and Christianity.

                    You are blaming religion, whether you want to admit it or not.  It all boils down to this:  Is the Bible a written account of historical data or a written justification for (what you consider to be) poor behavior of the Jewish people?    Either way you look at it, you are claiming religion is the cause of the problem. 

                    I find it interesting that you would believe religion is equal to willful ignorance.  Knowledge is power - and what exactly is known about religion?  Could it be nothing, as you assert its being equal to willful ignorance would have one believe, or, do people study different religions of the world in order to understand them better?  Studying different religions will bring about knowledge of religion - studying the Bible will bring about knowledge of the world as a whole. 

                    Accepting a world where millions die through famine, disease, and war is neither God's will nor a dereliction of duty.  There is no betrayal of common humanity when one understands life as an opportunity to learn and grow in understanding, love, tolerance, and acceptance, and accepts life has its limitations.  Not being able to save the world is not a betrayal.  Its a fact of life that nobody can save the world - try as we might, wars, famine, disease, hatred, and death will never go away.  All we can do is work our way through this world doing what we can with the abilities we have.

                    One last thing - you have no idea how I view the world OR how I came to have my views, and I don't have time to explain it!  Accept this fact:  My perception of the world is my own.  Learning logic at a young age does have its advantages...you learn to think for yourself!!  I do have to question your perception of the world, though.  It sounds an awful lot like someone who goes through life making decisions based on fear.  So, now I ask, what are you afraid of?  That God really does exist?

                2. profile image0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't even think the NT 'reinforces' the OT very well - if anything, it tries to do away with the OT - like an 'upgrade' to reflect cultural changes.  A bit like how some translations of the bible attempt to be more 'current'

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    interesting.  I like it!  The NT is an 'upgrade' to the OT. big_smile

                    I think the NT reinforces the OT as well as it can, considering a few things....

                    Jesus tells the people to be less worried about what goes into the mouth rather than what comes out of it.  This means, to me, that the dietary laws aren't so important, but the Golden Rule takes priority.  (what was the purpose of the dietary laws?  don't know, don't care.  it isn't for me to question - only to learn from)

                    All of Jesus' teachings reinforce the 10 Commandments, through the themes of love. tolerance, and acceptance.

                    Anything outside of Jesus' teachings remains the same.  The trick is understanding the difference between what is historical value, stories to learn from, laws & rules for life, evidence, metaphor, and what reinforces what.  hmm

  17. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Interesting post Jeremy, can you recall the show's name? smile

    1. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No I really can't.  It has been a few years.  It just explained how everything could have happened just as described in the bible from a scientific prospective.  It was a domino effect kind of thing.

         It had the "The Exodus from Egypt"  in the title in some way  I  THINK ?

         Not much help I know.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Jeremy, that should be enough for me to find it. smile

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This too does not prove nor disprove the story as depicted in scriptures.

             This would explain why, in the story Pharaoh decided to let the Hebrews Go but God hardened his heart, and Pharaoh wouldn't let them go after saying he would.

            All these calamities were already on the way.

            All that can be proven is that these events most certainly could have happened and as IE said....  Moses was a real man, and the story did originate at the right time.

            Believing is up to the individual.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Jeremy. I don't just seek out things that support my beliefs, in fact I would be happy to change my beliefs in a heartbeat in light of better data.

            Not having a belief system is good like that. In the motor industry one gets used to being wrong, changing views instantly to a new configuration. smile

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I do know what ya mean,  I've always kept my cars running myself.  With the passing of so many years since I tried to be professional  (72)  a lot has changed ,  but the basics haven't changed,  just too much stuff piled on top of it, One thing telling something else to tell something else to not let the fuel pump pump etc. etc. etc.  and it all looks alike.

                 The basics are the same but the fundamentals keep getting moved around.  That is how I look at that.
                A lot of asking a friend  "where is such and such at these days.

  18. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    The only person to vouch for Moses is....well...Moses!

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly! lol

    2. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How many people do you know any way?

          Just wanted to say HA   to Ya   Goina go hose the day off a me now.   Later.

  19. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    I wonder what language the 10 Commandments were supposedly written in?  And could the Exodus group actually read them in the first place?  How educated were the revelers who were having the golden calf orgy?

    I don't know about them, but if I had been witness to God's powers I don't think I would have been participating in such.  Just saying....

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Great questions.  I wonder all that myself.  Too bad we don't have the originals. But if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say they'd be written in ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics.  But that's a best guess.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Most, if not all, of the OT was simply a conglomeration of myths from several ancient religions adapted into a time line by an unknown person or persons and attributed to Moses.  Possibly the forerunners of the Jewish faith. 

        Many of the events used in the OT were "borrowed" and changed to fit the needs of the author(s).

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
          IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think the story of Noah is one such story that fits in with what you are saying.  But Moses, well its just my opinion that he is authentic. My opinion could be bias on the fact that I'm a Christian.  I've done my research on Moses, and to me there is enough evidence to say he existed.  I feel Jacob is another biblical character, with scientific and archaeological evidence to back up the story.  However, Noah..........,  lets just say the story doesn't hold any water. Besides that there are flood stories dating before Noah's time, which I think might have gotten mixed up with it.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, Moses could have existed, but why would he have disrespected a deity he knew was so powerful?  You know, smiting the rock, breaking the Ten Commandments tablets etc.?

            If he wasn't afraid of a God he had personally dealt with, why expect those unacquainted with him to be so?  And why would God choose someone with a lack of self control to chronicle Genesis?

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
              IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I believe more in the tangible aspects, than the intangible. 

              What I mean by this is I believe in the man Moses.  I believe he led a mass exodus of people to a "new world" and essentially a new world order.  Much like our forefathers did for us, when they left England behind, brought about a Revolution, and succeeded at creating a new country.  To me Moses was a George Washington of sorts, leading a large group of people to a "promise" land.

              Did Moses stop by the side of the road, and decide to climb a mountain?  Did George Washington cut down a Cherry tree?  I don't know.  Nobody knows.  But that doesn't change the fact that he founded a new world, a new religion, a new race of people, a new society, and a new way of life.  Which to me, is bigger than climbing up a mountain, and carrying down some stone tablets.  I mean seriously, so what if he did?  I make rules in my household all the time, only to break it inadvertently, or better yet, forget all about the darn thing.

              I don't get caught up in the fable, I guess is what I'm trying to say.  I get caught up in the facts.  Did Moses talk to God?  I don't know.  Do you?  Do you talk to yourself?  Maybe Moses was talking to himself, and pretending to talk to God.  To me thats not what is relevant.  Did Moses actions of courage, rebellion, and dedication change lives?  That to me is what is relevant.  Kinda like did Alexander the Great, really make it all the way to India?  Yeah he did.  What an amazing display of courage and strength.smile

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's fine for you, IE!  But I see it from another perspective.  Inventing a religion to control masses of people does not engender respect from me.  The Ten Commandments are basic tribal laws to keep harmony among the tribe's population.  They were around long before Moses opted to make himself their originator, with his God's assistance, of course.

                No different from Joseph Smith in my book!  Both claimed divine instructions from the creator. Of course, neither of them had any proof whatsoever other than their own word.

                1. Druid Dude profile image60
                  Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you think a dumb ol shepard invented religion. You're dumber than moses was.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But I am smart enough to spell "shepherd".  LOL!

            2. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              sorry, but I'm going to stick my nose in again.

              I heard this somewhere, could be through devotions or any other kind of religious study not associated with any particular religion:

              God chooses to act through certain people for certain reasons - it could be because they have the skills needed, or to test them, it could even be that God had to settle for whoever was available at the time.  The main point is, it is not ours to question, but to learn.

              (I think I may have heard this through Christian leadership information, actually)

              The point of it was to teach people (in modern times) that the perfect employee doesn't necessarily exist, and sometimes managers have to settle during the hiring process.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There is nothing to show God acts through such people, other than those people claiming so!

                And It is for us to question!  Do you not question other things in life?  Why should religion be any different?  If your favorite religious leader said for you to kill your child because it was God's will, would you merely acquiesce?  If not, why?

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Randy, you are mistaken.  From what I understand, the story of Noah and the flood was written by Moses, not Noah, therefore Noah didn't claim God chose to act through him!  (I believe this is true for most books in the Bible - the writer isn't relating their own story, but someone else's life)

                  I may not have made it clear when I said it is not ours to question - it's not our place to question why God chose Moses, or it's not our problem to question what if this happened, or that.  It's not up to us to question how things happened.  The purpose of the stories isn't for us to question their validity, but to learn from them whatever there is for us to learn from them. 

                  Daniel in the Lions Den teaches bravery.  The story of Joseph teaches patience.  Does this mean the stories are untrue?  No.  Does this mean the stories are true?  No.  It means the stories have a purpose whether or not you believe they originated through Divine Intervention.

                  As for whether or not I'd kill my child because I was told it was God's will.  No, I wouldn't.  Because I'm weak - I may have faith, but not that much.  Also, I don't believe there is a religious leader out there who could convince me it was God's will for me to kill my child - because I'm too stubborn.

                  1. Druid Dude profile image60
                    Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Sir Rafni, good Knight. Thou hast spoken true. Thou shalt surely be praised in the place of the Grail this very DAY!

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But there are religious leaders who do convince others to believe them.  The Jonestown Massacre to just name one of these events.  And because you don't fall for these "religious leaders" and their interpretation of "God's message through them" doesn't mean others do not.  Those that believed the teachings of Moses, for instance.

                    Anyone can teach good and bad, no religion is required to do so.  Neither is a deity required to know the difference.

                  3. profile image0
                    Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Andrea Yates drowned her children - can't recall the details of whether she thought god or satan was telling her to do it

          2. peterxdunn profile image60
            peterxdunnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you want a flood story that predates the writing of the story of Noah - try googling Gilgamesh.

  20. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Jesus himself said nothing ever.What was said ABOUT him was a pack of lies.

    Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:

    4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9.  But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea".  Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

    5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus.  But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

    6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead.  Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken."  But there is no such prophecy.  It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20.  This is not correct.  Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments.  The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about.  And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

    7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."  Hosea 11:1.  Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse.  But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all.  It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus.  Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

    8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.  But this is unlikely for two reasons.

        A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

        B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.  This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.  It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I notice your quoting from the bible a lot more

      You are aware nothing makes them madder than hell than quoting negative things from the Bible.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        smile I guess that is why they go to such great lengths to have me banned.
        The other thing religionists can't stand is anything that smacks of truth!
        I just wish some of them would read their own book. smile

        1. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          That is why religion is a psychosis.
          After visiting these religious forums, it is
          clear.

          Truth causes too much anxiety in a mind that is already conditioned to believe in something despite the total illogical nature of the premise.

          It appears that some people can even distort the perception of right and wrong, while simultaneously promoting their moral superiority.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well said getitrite, it is indeed a psychosis. smile

    2. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good mornin Earnest  and all...YAWN    sipping my first cup of coffee.  My thinker anit wound up yet!

          Have checked a couple of these verses out.
          I agree that the disciples made a few misinterpretations.

          That is a habit that seems to have picked up some momentum through the centuries.

         For me it is kinda like as if I was stung by a wasp.
      I think that I was stung by a wasp? 
      I was shown a picture of a wasp.
      It didn't look like what I thought I was.

      It must have been my imagination!  But the knot on my arm isn't.  Humm   

        don't get to hang around long...  I get to go to work today.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good morning Jerami. smile I hope you have a good day at work then.
        I have quite a lot more to say on this. Perhaps another time. smile

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sure  I'm looking forward to it.

            I do believe in him ...   But like you ..I just don't believe  "EVERY THING" that is said of him either.

            Interpretations are a dangerous thing!
           
            Especially when they are based upon someone else's perceptions other than our own.

            Some people would say  "I gotta go to work today"
            I think  "Great"  I get to!

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I always loved going to work as well. It is a wonderful thing.
            I have seldom worked at things I do not enjoy, so that could be the reason I reckon.
            It's great to be in charge of your own life. smile

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It makes a difference when you don't have to punch a clock or be in the same surroundings day in and day out!  I never know where I'll be or what I'll be doing on most days.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Spot on Randy. smile I have worked for myself since I was 23.
                I never needed any prompting to go to work early but when I made my first decent money I deliberately went to work late just cos I could!
                My way of confirming my ideas had worked in business, and to remind myself that I could do what I liked as I was the owner.

                Are you working on your own property Randy? smile

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I am, Earnest, but will probably lease most of it out next year to my younger cousins.  This last summer was the hottest many of us can remember so I will not grow much of anything except a large garden of vegetables, flowers, and herbs!

                  I plan to spend more time hunting, fishing, camping, traveling, and of course, writing!  Life is good!

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Now I know what you mean when you say you have variety in your work.
                    My dad had 173 acres when I was a teenager, and we always had plenty to do and lots of variety.

                    Your upcoming life of leisure sounds like living in paradise.

                    Couldn't happen to a better bloke! I'm chuffed for ya!

    3. hanging out profile image60
      hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      earnest, really....
      4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9.  But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea".  Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

      They expected him to come as a king WHICH He WILL, when He returns. A lamb first and then a king to rule in the 1000 yr reign. Zechariah 9:10-13 is unfulfilled but on the list to be fulfilled. The prophecies about jesus christ the Son of God are two part. One part concerning his death and New Dispensation and the other part concerning his kingship when He returns.
      ---------------------------------------------

      5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus.  But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

      Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not".
      According to Midrash, Jacob buried Rachel near the road so that the Jews would pass her grave as they traveled into exile and she would be able to pray for them.
      So this fulfilled prophecy 'due to location' and is applicable. Rachel could cry both at jeremiahs time and herods killing of the babies, since the same route was used that lead to bethlehem. Rachel would have been witness to both events by proxy.
      --------------------------------------

      6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead.  Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken."  But there is no such prophecy. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about.

      Psalms 22:14   I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. A bone that is out of joint is a bone that is NOT broken, if you care to examine the rest of this messianic prophecy psalm you will see clearly it parallels the events of christs crucifixion. The john 19:36 is not a quote but reference to the prophecy.
      In your wonderful note about the passover lamb, yes, jesus was the passover lamb, by his bloodshed we are 'passed over' by the wrath of God and hence a dispensation of Grace.
      ---------------------------------------

      7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."  Hosea 11:1.  Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse.  But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all.  It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus.  Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

      If this is all that is quoted then this is all that applies. Joseph and mary did come out of egypt. Matthew says it fulfills, then it fulfills. I suppose there could be some spiritual application to israel and there is, but it doesn't really apply to jesus without some stretching.
      There are some other examples of half line prophecies but i won't be putting the time to research that for your predictable one liner reply.
      -----------------------------------------------

      8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.  But this is unlikely for two reasons.

          A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

           -Strongs concordance disagrees with your claim of a clan.
      bethlehem is ephratah. here's the definition of ephratah.
          1) a place near Bethel where Rachel died and was buried
          2) another name for Bethlehem
      You seem to be a little confused:
      Genesis 48:7 "And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem".
      This is obviously a place and not the clan you refer too, i am not saying that there may well be a clan ephrath but there is beyond doubt a place called bethlehem or ephrath.

          B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.  This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.  It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

          -Because he meant the town and not the clan of which i am uncertain there is any such clan, however there is certainly a town. bethlehem and ephratah are the same name in different language, why put both in.. i dunno but i can't say that this speaks ill of matthews intent. As i mentioned before, jesus the lamb first, then jesus the king. Jesus will defeat assyrians and all else in that latter time, his return.
      ------------------------------------------------------
      have a great day.
      There are NO contradictions in the bible only sloppy interpretations.
      wheres one two and three?

      1. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        hmmm no response lol

        contradictions abandoned hahaha.
        praise God.

  21. jondav profile image63
    jondavposted 6 years ago

    Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus (pardon the pun) - The whole bible thing is a myth. You can't take the stories in it literally, thats not the point of it.


    If anyone of you REALLY think some blokes could part a sea, walk on water or perform miracles you really need to get out more.

    Believe what you want to at the end of the day, but at least be realistic.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is pretty childish and silly isn't it jondav! lol

      1. jondav profile image63
        jondavposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yes, and we all know blokes can't multitask!

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Moses was no more a myth than Merlin. I think they went to the same school.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image24
            Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Merlin In The Lord Of The Rings or Merlin in King Arthur legend?

  22. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 6 years ago

    Not a myth! He was my neighbor for seven years.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Did he part the bathwater or the water in your radiator? I hate it when he does that!

      1. profile image0
        klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        none of that. All he ever did was steal my wireless connection!

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ah! The modern Moses eh? smile

  23. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    This is just my opinion
    This a perfect example of two well articulated statements of fact that each are very but not totally true.  (In my opinion)
       Blend the two together and ya got something.
     
    Rafini wrote ...I don't believe the New Testament was meant to bring about a new religion,
    - - - -   

       The Jesus event nor the disciples doing what they did was not for the purpose of a new religion ... agreed! 
       But the books that were assembled into  what is known as the bible was created for the purpose of establishing a new religion that for all practical purposes was intended to pull the western Roman Empire back together.

      This new religion was established in the interest of politics.
      There is a thin line between faith in God and political agenda which can be seen if looked for.  and should be avoided.
      Just my opinion.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hiya Jerami,

      Just curious - you say the Bible was created in order to establish a new religion.  How is this known?  To me, the Bible looks like pre-Jesus history and post-Jesus history - for a certain amount of time. (I would guess the New Testament is less than 100 years worth of history, since its mainly about the life of Jesus)

      I don't think the Bible was intended to create a new religion, either.  I think the Bible is simply a compilation of historical data.  The fact that a new religion came after the life of Jesus and the creation of the Bible, I think, is a coincidence.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hello .  Rafini  how are you ...  I'm getting more decripid every day  HA

           You are right.  I should have been more specific.
        I was speaking of  The religion that was built in 326 AD. 

        I wasn't referring to the Hebrew scriptures.  The New religion was built upon Jesus??      WHAT!!     You say.

          YES   that's right.   A lot of people said that hack then also.  But they aren't with us any longer.   Hmmm?

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My only problem with the thought of the Bible being created to start a new religion is this:  I don't believe the books were written for that purpose, if they were, why wait until 326 AD to compile the books?  If the books were written to create a new religion, then why didn't the new religion begin while Jesus was still alive?

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There were tens of 1000s of letters from the times.
              These letters were not written for the purpose of being published as such.  They were letters that were exchanged among friends.

                In 326   the religious leaders were gathered together.
            by and resided over by the Emperor
               They searched through many of these 1000s of letters and selected these that we have today for publication.

                A foundation was laid down  and a religion grew out of it.

               A transition had occurred.   ???????

              Just my thoughts any way.

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Right, okay.  Well, I don't think the new religion (Christianity) was created on purpose.  I honestly believe the majority of Jews still weren't ready to accept Jesus as the Messiah and those that did, were 'disowned' from their families. 

              Think about this:  Commandment # ?  Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. 

              For everyone who chose to follow Jesus, what were they doing?  They believed they were following the one and only true God.  Others believed they were betraying the God that had given them life, and delivered their ancestors out of Egypt.

              Had you been alive back then, and these were your only options, which would you have chosen? 

              (just a sudden thought - I wonder how many people, back then, turned their backs on God because of the uncertainty over whether or not Jesus was the son of God - how many atheists came to be during this period of time in history, due to their belief being put into question?  -  I'm having difficulty putting my thought into exact words.  I'll try again later.)

              1. Rafini profile image87
                Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                after re-reading this post, I think it's as close as I'm going to get to my thoughts. hmm

              2. hanging out profile image60
                hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Paul says we are all sons of God (those who are saved) Jesus came to be an example of how to walk the christlikeian life. He prayed to the father, fathers have sons. hmmm. Fits. Its not a hard concept for me to grasp because we all have (saved people) God in us to the degree we have submitted to God, some more than others obviously. As far as i am concerned jesus was/is a maneuver of brilliance! When the Law had failed to empower people it was definitely time to change operations (dispensations). The volume of the book points to the messiah which translated means annointed one and no one has been so annointed as jesus.
                Btw atheists...What i say is from the bible, i don't care if you don't like that, christlikeians and bibles go together, i do research and keep in context all i type, also, i do not return to my posts to hear unsound aggressive ranting if you have a dilemma about what i have typed, i can be emailed from my profile page.
                enjoy my posts and i hope you all learn from them.

                1. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  there's nothing to learn if you aren't willing to analyze and discuss the issues.


                  christlikeians is not a word from the Bible, in fact, it isn't a word I've ever heard before.

                  try again, or no?

                  1. hanging out profile image60
                    hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    i invented christlikeian. christian has been polluted with false connotations and catholic dogma. Christlikeians are quite simply people who are aspiring to be like christ.
                    There is nothing to analyze and discuss, often the answer is the answer. The bible is definitive in bible matters and there is no other source. This is not christianity 800 its barely christianity 101.
                    milk issues
                    Hubpages is not a place of the atheist elite. There are quite a number of wounded souls here, venting or wanting but most just angry.
                    i am still waiting for someone to give me a contradiction (by email plz) that i can by biblical means prove not to be a contradiction.
                    brotheryochanan has beautifully disproved the judas contradiction
                    http://hubpages.com/hub/judas-hanged-or … -of-course
                    You can check out my rebuttal to the geneology contradiction here: http://hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradic … y-of-Jesus
                    and of course this wonderful rebuttal
                    4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9.  But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea".  Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

                    They expected him to come as a king WHICH He WILL, when He returns. A lamb first and then a king to rule in the 1000 yr reign. Zechariah 9:10-13 is unfulfilled but on the list to be fulfilled. The prophecies about jesus christ the Son of God are two part. One part concerning his death and New Dispensation and the other part concerning his kingship when He returns.
                    ---------------------------------------------

                    5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus.  But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

                    Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not".
                    According to Midrash, Jacob buried Rachel near the road so that the Jews would pass her grave as they traveled into exile and she would be able to pray for them.
                    So this fulfilled prophecy 'due to location' and is applicable. Rachel could cry both at jeremiahs time and herods killing of the babies, since the same route was used that lead to bethlehem. Rachel would have been witness to both events by proxy.
                    --------------------------------------

                    6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead.  Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken."  But there is no such prophecy. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about.

                    Psalms 22:14   I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. A bone that is out of joint is a bone that is NOT broken, if you care to examine the rest of this messianic prophecy psalm you will see clearly it parallels the events of christs crucifixion. The john 19:36 is not a quote but reference to the prophecy.
                    In your wonderful note about the passover lamb, yes, jesus was the passover lamb, by his bloodshed we are 'passed over' by the wrath of God and hence a dispensation of Grace.
                    ---------------------------------------

                    7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."  Hosea 11:1.  Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse.  But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all.  It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus.  Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

                    If this is all that is quoted then this is all that applies. Joseph and mary did come out of egypt. Matthew says it fulfills, then it fulfills. I suppose there could be some spiritual application to israel and there is, but it doesn't really apply to jesus without some stretching.
                    There are some other examples of half line prophecies but i won't be putting the time to research that for your predictable one liner reply.
                    -----------------------------------------------

                    8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy.  But this is unlikely for two reasons.

                        A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

                         -Strongs concordance disagrees with your claim of a clan.
                    bethlehem is ephratah. here's the definition of ephratah.
                        1) a place near Bethel where Rachel died and was buried
                        2) another name for Bethlehem
                    You seem to be a little confused:
                    Genesis 48:7 "And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem".
                    This is obviously a place and not the clan you refer too, i am not saying that there may well be a clan ephrath but there is beyond doubt a place called bethlehem or ephrath.

                        B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6.  This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.  It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

                        -Because he meant the town and not the clan of which i am uncertain there is any such clan, however there is certainly a town. bethlehem and ephratah are the same name in different language, why put both in.. i dunno but i can't say that this speaks ill of matthews intent. As i mentioned before, jesus the lamb first, then jesus the king. Jesus will defeat assyrians and all else in that latter time, his return.

                    as i have said before there are no contradictions just sloppy interpretations.

          2. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            if a committee hadn't have voted on which books belong in the bible (with disagreement and revisions), would more "books" have been added since?

            1. hanging out profile image60
              hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              NO there are no more books.

  24. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    pjk_artist wrote ..
      Moses is a state of mind which any man may enter.  The bible is not a history book, its a story book.



      This is true ! !    But ?   if someone thinks that when they die;  that they enter within an Oak tree, or a turtle
    or an empty paint can???   

        How does that hurt anybody else!!
        I say we let um do that.
        Lets call this RULE #  ONE!
     
        And after we see that they are not a trash can that we place all of our blame on?    Then, there might be Pease on Earth?

      Sounds like a pretty good place to start;
    We put our selves in our clildrens minds for a moment... relax ,   When We toldum ...   




    It's your room ...   If you don't like it like that way!
    then  YOU clean it up.     BUT ..

        But you gotta adhear to rule number ONE

    1. Rishy Rich profile image80
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jeremi :  "This is true ! !    But ?   if someone thinks that when they die;  that they enter within an Oak tree, or a turtle
      or an empty paint can???

      HOw does that hurt anybody else??"

      Well, Its a lie. A lie do hurt people in many ways Jeremy. First of all, it hurts him because he is not living in reality. He is failing to understand life. Overtime, he will be convinced that his believe is reality & will try to spread that. He will teach his children, offspring & friends the same thing & then they will do the same again & again in order to get social acceptance, power & respect. As a result, a majority will be following something awefully wrong & false, affecting our growth, advancement & understanding of this world.

      Secondly, overtime he, his children & his followers will come up with more deeper nonsense to support his lies. They will be lacking evidence so they  will right books which will contain stories claiming the words are from the Oak tree or trash can. One day this trash can or oak tree might tell them to become Jihadis & kill those who does not believe in the divinity of the trash cans or might order them to fight for the Holy Oak Land.

      Result is apparent in modern day life.

      So, you see, your rule #1 is not acceptable.

  25. shazwellyn profile image83
    shazwellynposted 6 years ago

    On the walls of Abu Simbel inlaid by the great Ramesus (II), is a story of a man who led the people away from his kingdom.  It tells the story of slaves being freed after a series of curses, finally leading to the death of his first born son (the catalyst to the exodus).  On the inlay hieraglyphs of the temple, tells how he sent his troops to retrieve them and how they were lost at sea (parting of the waters??).

    I know this, because I have seen it.  I have an avid interest in Egyptology and have travelled from Cairo to Thebes to Aswan to Abu Simbel and there seems to be lots of correlation to the stories of the bible.

    What you need to consider is far before Moses (500 years prior) there lived a pioneering king - Akhenaton - he was the first to believe in one God... this was the Aton, the God of everything, the Sun God - I digress, but he turned his back on the many Gods that had been worshipped before and had his name defaced and eradicated from history for many centuries.  It was his son, Tutenkamon who re-established the old order.  He was the boy king.

    So, long before Moses, there lived a very special man... Akhenaten.

    1. profile image0
      Whikatposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi shazwellyn, I found your post extremely interesting, because I had never been taught about this, not even in the Christian College that I attended.
      I tried to do research on your facts via the Internet, but I cannot find any information verifying what you said. At the moment I can only find these sites, which do not correlate to what you are describing.
      http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/abu-simbel
      http://egyptsites.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/abu-simbel/
      http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories … 2ssons.htm
      http://www.nickwinter.com/journeys/africa/egypt.htm
      I was hoping that you may be able to direct me to a website that has the information you speak about concerning the plagues and the death of the first son, because I can not find this information anywhere. One of the above websites state that his first son died somewhere in his 40's or 50's.
      I am sure I would not be able to see walls of Abu Simbel, personally, but surely there is some information regarding what you speak of on the Internet somewhere?

      Thanks in advance smile

  26. debbiesdailyviews profile image60
    debbiesdailyviewsposted 6 years ago

    Well if so, I'm about to fall foul of a future Hub, I am on the brink on writing : }

  27. Aficionada profile image94
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    Umm, everyone else's perception of the world is not their own?  What about peterxdunn's?  Is his perception of the world the only one that is his own?  Hmm.  Gotta think about that. lol

    Shaz, thanks for posting about Abu Simbel!  In all of the info I have heard through my life - religious education, college courses about the Bible, parent's trip to Egypt - I may have heard about that and forgotten it, but I'm not 100% certain. 

    Anyway, your post really blows me away, and it encourages me to get back into research/study mode.

    PS - About Tut, the boy-king:  Isn't there a theory (or maybe actual evidence) that he was put in power so that he could be controlled by the power brokers of the day?  Did they actually "get rid of" Akhenaton?  Perhaps so that they could influence Tut to return to the old order?  -- I don't know whether I'm speculating here or pulling some hazy bits out of fuzzy memory.

    Rafini, I have no idea what PXD meant about you sounding upset - in my opinion you were/are quite far from sounding upset.  big_smile  I suspect he was intimidated by your clarity of expression and your self-confidence.  Keep on keeping on, woman!

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile   (that's the problem I usually have with people...usually women though)

  28. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    i think that you expressed it very well.

    I think that they had the problem that we have today.

      They had a different understand as to what to expect when the messiah did come.  They were interpreting their desires upon them.  When the prophesy were fulfilled they were caught unaware as many of us will be.

    1. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yeah, that's what I was thinking. smile

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is what I have been saying for a while.

          And I really believe it.

  29. mythbuster profile image85
    mythbusterposted 6 years ago

    Moses, as an archetype has value, even if, historically, he didn't exist.

  30. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    WoW, I love Myth's work but never knew he was...............

  31. Aficionada profile image94
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    Hey, iantoPF, I don't know whether you are still checking this thread, but I have some more interesting info you might like to check out.  After reading the fascinating posts here, I have done some more research and had a few conversations IRL.

    One item of interest is the Ipuwer Papyrus. It is not definitely connected with the Exodus, but there really are some remarkable details that resemble the story in the Bible. There are numerous places you can read up on it online; one such place is here: http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838

    I plan to e-mail you in the next day or so with some more information and a link through your "contact" button, if it is active.

 
working