Johnny Skeptic

If the ten plagues in Egypt occured, they were perhaps the greatest coverup in history. If they occurred, there would have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses would have included many travelers and vistors from foreign countries who would have went home and widely circulated the news in the Middle East. Then the news would quickly have traveled to other countries. Many historians would have recorded the news. It is well-known that ordinary oral traditions continue for many centuries. How much more so would news of the ten plagues have continued for many centuries as oral traditions? Since even one plague would have been big news, ten plagues would easily been the story of the millennia. The Old Testament says that the Philistines were aware of the plagues and were afraid of the Jews. That is not likely.

Consider the following:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...n-plagues.html

Debunking Christianity

This Blog has been created for the express purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are all ex-Christians. Most of us are ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths, we seek to debunk Christianity.

Archeology in the past 30 years has reduced the historical probability of the Exodus from slim to none. There is not a lick of proof of the destination of Exodus. Even though we should have extensive amounts of evidence of an invasion of Hebrews into Canaan, we have none. No proof for the Exodus itself. We have evidence of nomads crossing the desert, but nothing of 2 million (or 20,000 if you prefer the variant reading) wandering about this area.

We have no proof, no archeological fact, not a single historical writing that the beginning of the Exodus occurred—the Ten Plagues. Using the very familiar “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” Christians often claim that the reason there is no evidence is that the Egyptians would not record these events as embarrassing, or as a cover-up for their incompetence.

The problem is - these events would have too large of an impact - politically, militarily, economically and socially, to have covered them up. Have you ever read the story of the Plagues and thought about the results in the society? Egypt would have been wiped off the map! The Ten Plagues could not have happened as recorded in the book of Exodus.

First of all, the length of time between plagues is not recorded. Did this happen over one year? Did it happen over a period of years? Depending on the convenience of the apologists, opinions differ. The impression given is that this happened in a short period of time. We have seven days between the first and second plague. There is the implication that within the same harvest time some grain is not wiped up, and subsequently it is wiped out. On the other hands, animals keep re-appearing, after having been allegedly killed off on previous plagues, which would imply this was over longer periods of time.

If it happened in a short time, as we will see, all Egyptians would be dead. If over a longer period of time, more archeological evidence and writing would have happened and didn’t. Either proposition is difficult.

Secondly, there is a question as to how far-reaching these plagues were. When it says “every” is that just exaggeration for “quite a bit”? Were they localized? The problem with this proposition is that God intended this to be a demonstration of His glory. A local sickness, killing a few cows, or a bad summer storm would not be remarkable. If the Christian wants this tale to be the jumping-off point for the establishment of Israel, it would have to be more than a few bugs.

To say, “This was so grand that God provided a way for 2 Million people to exit Exodus” and then follow up with “but it wasn’t all that as recorded in the book” is to want one’s cake and eat it too!

Finally, there are substantial reasons to determine these stories are allegories—never happened. For purposes of this particular blog, I am addressing those Christians that hold these were historical facts, and asking them to think about the implications.

Johnny: I suggest that readers read all of the article.

rhutchin

How about distilling the argument down to something tangible and explain those points (the article expresses a lot of opinions for which you could provide some tangible support).

This is an interesting argument and you can do a lot with it. Let's see if you can.

If all you can do is cut and paste what others say and you do not understand what they are saying, why continue the discussion?

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "If all you can do is cut and paste what others say and you do not understand what they are saying", it is quite obvious that you do not understand what my source is saying. I suggest that you go back and read it again. I assume that the average sixth grader can understand and agree with my source. You are not a careful, thorough reseacher and debater. This is obvious to anyone who has read a lot of your posts. You did not reply to one single argument that my source used. Do you call that debating, to deliberately refuse to reply to any of my source's arguments and dismiss his evidence by claiming that I do not understand it? You will not get away with this. I will post each one of my source's arguments, and you will have to discuss each one of them or embarrass yourself in front of the undecided crowd.

It is a question of what a rational person concludes when he does not find what he ought to find if the plagues in Egypt, and the Exodus, occured. The lack of even one bit of convincing evidence for either of those claims is quite embarrassing for Christians.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Johnny: It is important to note that it is not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant. Rather, it is incumbent upon Christians who claim that the Bible is inerrant to reasonably prove their claim. Not only that, it is incumbent upon inerrantists to reasonbly prove that the originals have not been changed. Now where is your evidence? You don't have any? I didn't think you did.

Peter Kirby

Of course, this is not the case. You are being entirely ham handed, Johnny Skeptic. Nobody embarrasses themselves for refusing to reply to all the reams of text that might be quoted, and this is because the person merely quoting has shown no effort and no commitment to the discussion--and, yes, though they may and likely do understand the material, they haven't even demonstrated that much. Not only will the 'undecided crowd' have sympathy for the erstwhile interlocutor, but so will those such as me who are decidedly in favor of your thesis, simply because you have shown bad faith on how to start and continue a genuine dialogue. This is compounded by the way that you reply here, not by recognizing the need for some original contribution to a discussion, but rather by hammering on the other with threats of embarrassing them and accusations of sub-standard education. Any self-respecting individual would let you beat your chest in hollow victory and just walk away.

--
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

I am not being ham handed. Rhutchin did not comment on one single thing that my source said. Are you actually proposing that rhutchin is not obligated to provide any replies at all to my arguments except for telling me that I do not understand my sources? You are well aware that if the ten plagues and the Exodus occured, there would be a good deal of archaeological and historical evidence that they occured, and that there is not any such evidence.

Rhutchin has said that he would not object if we imposed the death penalty for homosexuality, that he would be pleased if all Biblical laws were legislated, and that God might force skeptics to suffer if hell beyond what they can endure, and yet you claim that I am ham handed. You need an attitude adjustment. You will not get nowhere criticizing me. I will make whatever posts that I wish to make within the rules of IIDB.

Now will you please tell us how you would deal with rhutchin, who is a staunch Calvinist, and a big fan of Pascal's Wager?

Peter Kirby

They are not your arguments; they are the arguments of your source. When you learn to integrate the knowledge from not just a source, but multiple sources, and to present a synthesis of your own, you will have advanced an argument. Then discussion may begin in earnest.

--
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I would not "deal with" him, if I understand what you mean by that, in the first place. I would address him as a human being. And if you like, I will relieve you of "dealing with" him, so you can deal with others (there must be many such to be dealt with), and I will start a dialogue with rhutchin myself.

--
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

I will do as you suggest regarding the web site that I quoted, but the first paragraph in my opening post was my own writing, not someone else's writing. I said "If the ten plagues in Egypt occured, they were perhaps the greatest coverup in history. If they occurred, there would have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses would have included many travelers and vistors from foreign countries who would have went home and widely circulated the news in the Middle East. Then the news would quickly have traveled to other countries. Many historians would have recorded the news. It is well-known that ordinary oral traditions continue for many centuries. How much more so would news of the ten plagues have continued for many centuries as oral traditions? Since even one plague would have been big news, ten plagues would easily been the story of the millennia. The Old Testament says that the Philistines were aware of the plagues and were afraid of the Jews. That is not likely."

GakuseiDon

How many accounts would have survived, IYO? And how would you calculate that number?

In 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted, killing thousands, and leaving 10s of thousands homeless. Perhaps we can use this as a control. How many accounts would we expect to have, IYO?

Johnny Skeptic

Did any ancient historians write about Mt. Vesuvius? Were oral accounts passed on from generation to generation and later recorded by historians?