Werbert

I'd say, that if all the rivers of Egypt were turned into blood, that would put a serious dent in Egyptian agriculture, and would probably have signalled the end of Egypt's run as a world power. In fact, I would think that would have a disastrous effect on any location.

And yes, some historical records would have survived. Some were actually carved in stone. But I think the bigger question is, would we have been able to understand those records? The Rosetta Stone was created by Greek administrators. If Egypt's pre-plague civilization completely collapsed centuries before Alexander the Great, and was replaced by a new civilization with a markedly different language/alphabet, we would know only the language of the new civilization.

GakuseiDon

Actually, I would argue that this is not the case, and there is no contradiction here. Arguably, only the animals "in the field" were killed, suggesting that those "at home" or "of the land" were not. The Bible emphasizes this several times: Ex 9:3, Ex 9:19 (those animals "in the field" and "not brought home" shall "surely die"), also 9:25. See also how the Bible distinguishes between "herbs in the field" and "herbs of the land": Ex 10:12, 10:15. If "in the field" refers to domesticated animals (and herbs) while "of the land" suggests undomesticated, then the meaning is clear.

I'm not an inerrantist btw, but I think the Bible should be approached to see how the passages look in context first, before deciding it is in error. (Let the hate mail begin!)

mung bean

If you're not an inerrantist you must concede the Bible contains errors.

Re the rivers of blood, not only would they bugger agriculture but it'd be detectable in sediment cores.

Lugubert

That would be an interesting question for our local Flood sediment expert.

mung bean

Funny you should mention that. I was suppyling a nice bit of bait for him. I'm curious to see if he'll make the connection. Of course doing so would involve evasion and misinterpretation on his part. Ahem.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I do.

Since it is a story, I honestly don't care.

mung bean

Then why did you bother posting a defence of the dead cows story?

GakuseiDon

I thought it worth pointing out that there wasn't necessarily a contradiction in that story.

Timetospend

Personally, I think that it is the one concerning cattle in all parts of the country, but a case can be made for cattle belong to all classes of people. Within the context of the chronicle, either is acceptable, and probably others, as the primary role of the comments seems to be the widespread nature of the plague.

Thanks,

Timetospend

You seem to be of the opinion that the Bible does not need to be interpreted. You also seem to be rather angry about it as well.

Given the following:
-It was written in a language that lay dead for 2500 years. There is no assurance that the current language is always the same now as it was before the Diaspora. Also, Exodus was written in an early form of the language.
-The cultural difference between now and then is tremendous.
-Exodus is written in a way that is supposed (may not be working for you) to get us to contemplate God's nature and actions...not necessarily to give us all the data that we want.

I can add to the list, but I find it a bit incredible that you would think that it would not need some interpretation.

Thanks,