Helo

Everyboddy knows the story of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. God unleashed the plagues to punish Pharoah for his ignoring Moses' pleas for freedom for his people.

However, is there a scientific explanation for the plagues.

Yes, there is a theory.

A cascade of cause and effect, originating in Ethiopia. Unusually heavy July rains wash red Ethiopian soil into one of the Nile's tributaries and consequently into the Nile itself. This red silt stains the Nile red and also kills fish and other aquatic life.

Escaping the polluted Nile, frogs swarm across the land. With no frogs to control them, the insect population explodes along the banks of the Nile. Standing water is infected with anthrax (A naturally occuring bacteria) which is passed to humans.

Hail is a rare event in Egypt but not impossible. An especially cold Febuary results in a hailstorm that devistates crops. By March, the traditional season of locusts, was made worse by strong hot winds that blew in containing dust from Ethiopian soil that had been released when the topsoil had been washed away. The dust drove locusts into the land of Egypt and kicked up enormous clouds of sand and dust that blotted out the sun for weeks at a time.

That explains all but one of the plauges. The only remaining plauge is the death of the first-born son.

It is almost universally accepted that the Pharoah in the story of the Exodus is Ramses II. The first-born son of Ramses was Amun-her-khepsef (That will come in important later). Its possible that the first-born reference was a reference to the "first born son of Egypt" is referring to Pharoah's son, as he would be the most important son in Egypt being the heir to the position of Pharoah.

Also, Hollywood and biblical historians has often made the assumption that the first born son is a child. There is however evidence that the firstborn son of Ramses, Amun-her-khepsef, reached adulthood.

The tomb of Amun-her-khepsef was also discovered along with his three brothers. Khepsef's skeleton showed signs (Most noteably a lack of fusing of cranial plates) that it had reached into his late 20's to early 30's.

Wall carvings at the temple of Abu Simbel depict Amun-her-khepsef commanding Egyptian armies that normally only Pharoah himself would command. This is because of an event that happens once every thirty years in Pharoah's reign. Only a handfull of Egyptian Pharoahs made it to this celebration. A celebration called a Sed Festival. This celebration elevated Pharoah into near god-like status. He became more involved with the religious aspects of his country. This left his first-born son Pharoah in all but name.

However, when Amun-her-khepsef's body was discovered, there was apparent a man-made hole on the side of his skull. The injury is not pre-mortem (It shows no signs of healing) but is most likely to be perry-mortem (Around the time of death) or post-mortem.

The injury is at the rear side of the head, just a few inches up and to the left of the left ear. Consistent with a death in battle. Amun-her-khepsef was acting Pharoah, he would have been involved in most of the action Egypt's armies saw.

Tradition claims that Pharoah who charged out after Moses and the Hebrews from the city of Pi Ramses (The capitol during the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt) was Ramses the Great (Ramses II). However, examination of the mummy of Ramses II shows extensive arthritis, and while he lived to be over 90 years old (An incredibly long time for ANY ancient Egyptian) he was not in the best physical shape and would probably have been un-able to ride a chariot.

Some have argued that the Pharoah Merneptah is a likely candidate for having perished in the Red Sea due to his salt-stained appearance. However scientific tests conclude that the salt is ordinary natron (River salt used in the embalming process) and that he shows no signs of drowning.

The only person left capable of commanding such forces in the city of Pi Ramses was the acting Pharoah, Amun-her-khepsef. The bible itself says "Pharoah SENT the chariots." It does not say he LED the chariots.

But the Bible itself has a few things to clear up.

What has usually been taken as the Red Sea, is actually translated litterally as "yam suph" or "The Sea of Reeds." This denotes an area of marshland at the head of the Red Sea in Eastern Egypt, much further North than previously thought.

Also, population reconstructions have suggested that Moses did not lead a group of 600,000 people, but more likely a group closer to thousands. Also, anyboddy with ANY tactical knowleage will tell you that if your outnumbered more than 300 to one, your probably going to loose unless its cavemen VS Mechwarrior. A force of 600 chariots is much more likely to be employed against a group of several thousand

Many people believe the Hebrews to have been defenseless. The people most likely were fairly well armed. 600 chariots were dispatched, indicating that Pharoah must have thought the Hebrews posed enough of a threat to send 600 chariots (A sizeable force) after them.

Marshland is non-passible to chariots. So the chariots could have proceeded through the Sea of Reeds at an extremely slow rate or the men on the chariots would have had to dismount and go on foot. Each chariot had atleast two people, a driver and an archer or soldier. So assuming there was one driver and two soldiers per chariot, thats 1,800 men.

So now you have a probably out-numbered Egyptian army that is not prepared for combat. They thought they would go out and run the slaves down, they werent expecting hand to hand combat. Hundreds of chariots stuck in the mud with very few Egyptian troops would have been easily dealt with by a couple thousand armed and angry slaves.

This presents several possible explanations for Amun-her-khepsef's wound.

1. He was struck in the stomach or legs with an arrow (The Hebrews definately would have had arrows for use in hunting) and bent over as a pain response. A Hebrew slave stepped up and bashed Khepsef with a right-handed swing holding a dull axe or sword. The blow severed blood vessels in Khepsef's head, causing unconsciousness and eventually exsanguination (Bleeding to death) as head wounds often bleed extensively.

2. He squared off with an opponent who managed to stab him in the gut with a sword. Khepsef bent over in response to pain and his opponent cracked him in the head (A right-handed blow) with the pommel of the weapon, again, causing death by exsanguination.


So, there we have it, a reasonable explanation for an event that is claimed to be miraculous.

WishboneDawn

I hate trying to find reasonable or scientific causes for biblical events. It's adds weight to the claim that they're literal and ignores the fact that they're mostly mythical or legendary.

Chris Weimer

Great, now show us some real evidence and not idle speculation and we'll sign you up for a new book contract!

general_koffi

Yeah... Your hypothesis assumes a lot.

It would be assuming less to assume that it *didn't* happen at all.

Besides, your theory doesn't account for the fact that there's no evidence for large numbers of Hebrews ever residing in Egypt.

Helo

Most of this is based off basic knowleage of Egyptology

Study some history, some Egyptology.

Actually there is.

There is an area of Egypt called el-Armana, constructed by the Pharoah Akhenaten. It was meant to be a new capitol for Egypt. The city was burried when Akhenaten was murdered.

It was re-discovered in 1887 by a woman digging to expose fertile land for farming. She also discovered over 300 cuneiform tablets, mostly diplomatic correspondence of the Pharoah. In the tablets, there is described a group of people known as the Habiru. The Habiru were nomads who basically did whatever they had to do to stay alive.

There is some evidence from un-earthed cuneiform records that some of Habiru settled with the Egyptians in return for a stable lifestyle, others were captured as slaves. A stela from the reign of Seti I (around 1300 BC) tells that the pharaoh sent an expedition into Syria or Palestine, in response to an attack of "the apiru from Mount Yarmuta" upon a local town. An unspecified number of the apiru were captured and brought back to Egypt as slaves.

This begins to make more sense when you look at the theory I presented above about the Exodus. A people with previous experience in warfare fighting and defeating an Egyptian army led by Pharoah's first-born son.

So now we have a plausible chain of events that can explain the story of the Exodus and the preceeding events

FatherMithras

Helo, I'm not trying to be mean, but your claims are outright laughable. Your claims about Egyptology have been refuted by actual archaeologists in the fields most relavent to what you're claiming to know. Care to cite any sources? I'm guessing not. The Exodus and biblical nonsense of Jewish slavery in Egypt has been so refuted that it's outright embarassing to say otherwise. No offense, as you haven't been here enough to see the dozen or so threads that demolish your claims. I'll wait for someone more...educated in the field to kick this one's ass.

Regardless, you have yet to show that any of your claims about the history is more than assertion. You've failed to show these "Habiru" are the Jews, or that the slaves you mention are the Hebrews. The ten plagues having any kind of basis is laughable, but once again...I'll wait for those better cited to reply.

FatherMithras

But this is the one thing that's easy to refute. No analysis of any archaelogy has ever shown that a group at the time periods suggested did any such exodus in the desert. In fact, thte total lack of evidence for it happening is conclusive enough to make the statement it never occured. There were wandering in Egypt, but none of them fit.

show_no_mercy

What???? I don't buy that. Metallica wrote a song about it, so it must be true. That's good enough for me!

Helo

Ok, then lets see it

Im not saying that the Exodus happened exactly the way it happened in the Bible. I believe the bible is a set of parables loosely based on history to teach both history and moral lessons for the Christian and Jewish faiths.

The simple fact is that we dont know for sure. Im advancing a possible theory as being more likely than the biblical version.

Not for certain but we do know that the Egyptians would enslave captured enemies. Its reasonable to assume that a group of nomadic people were attacked and enslaved (or told to settle in Egypt to work for the Egyptians) by the Egyptians. The Habiru (Who we KNOW existed, as attested by Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugaritic sources) are known to have carried out limited military actions that loosely fit the the conquests of the Hebrews under Joshua.

It wouldnt show up in Egyptian records, why would it? Pharoah and his army is crushed by slaves? Come on, thats humiliating. The Egyptians have altered history in the past to save face (They attempted to erase Akhenaten and any mention of Atenism from history. Why is it such a leap to suggest that this happened and the Egyptians erased the records of it to make people forget about it

FatherMithras

Total fabrication or lack of knowledge. We've shown through archaeology that the "Invasion of Canaan" never occured, due to the fact that none of the pottery, or architecture shows any kind of change through the periods they were supposedly invaded. If such a wipe out of peoples did happen, the evidence would be there.

Because there's no basis for your assertions? You're pointing to a total lack of evidence and saying "See? the fact nothing confirms this is proof!" It doesn't fly. The mere idea that a slave rebellion crushed Egypt (and don't forget it was through magic! The water parted for them and then swallowed up the army...which seems to conflict with your reed sea example, which has been dismissed by academics) is laughable and not supported by anything other than disproven assertions in an ancient text written sof ar after the fact as to be unimportant.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html

This site gives an easy introduction. It specifically obliterates the claims about the apiru and habiru. This is a pretty easy starting point.