Moses Didn't Part The Sea. It Was Just Really Windy.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1314292961' post='2294791']
Modern Archeology suggests that this is all moot because nothing like the Exodus described in the Bible ever happened.
[/quote]

yeah, and decades from now, this will be disproven by more scientific evidence and they will say the Exodus did happen ...

that's what i like about researchers, some say this and others say different, evidence from the past gets refuted and new evidence takes its place...

when science is done correctly, it affirms God's never-changing truth

Edited August 25, 2011 by dominicansoul

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1314295730' post='2294803']

yeah, and decades from now, this will be disproven by more scientific evidence and they will say the Exodus did happen ...

that's what i like about researchers, some say this and others say different, evidence from the past gets refuted and new evidence takes its place... :rollseyes:

when science is done correctly, it affirms God's never-changing truth
[/quote]

Indeed. Actually, not long ago I read something that seemed to support Scripture on the plagues, but as with anything, different experts have different opinions. Faith wouldn't be faith if it was always explainable.

[Archaeology cat]

The absence of evidence in archaeology cannot prove that something did not happen. There are many factors (climate conditions, material, how it was treated, etc.) in determining whether something is preserved, and the preserved items often don't give us a true cross-section of life. That's why sites like Pompeii and Herculaneum are so important, for they preserve the full spectrum of life instead of just showing us their rubbish or graves (the things that are often preserved). In Egypt the majority of things preserved are elite graves, so many end up with a very skewed image of Egyptian life. Until later, the graves were the only things constructed in stone instead of mud brick, and thus are the things that are preserved (mostly looted, but the structure is preserved). Egyptian ideology determined that the Pharaoh was the upholder of ma'at and defender against chaos, so they're hardly likely to have advertised such chaotic conditions as the plagues. There is literature that speaks of such chaotic conditions, though most consider it to be allegorical. It's possible it's more than that, but it's not for me to say. As far as I'm aware, such literature usually speaks of "intermediate" periods, such as Hyksos rule or the last Pharaoh of a dynasty before Egypt became fractured again, or in speaking of a Pharaoh who reunited "The Two Lands".

[Luigi]

Was Moses just "Standin' on a Rock Waiting for the Wind to Blow?"
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_NcaS_g1Zo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_NcaS_g1Zo[/url]

[Basilisa Marie]

There are even biblical scholars that argue over whether or not Moses actually excited, Jewish and Christian alike. For me it doesn't matter whether or not he historically did or whether the miracles scientifically happened - the point of the story still tells us about God and our relationship with Him. The Bible isn't a scientific text - but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1314311853' post='2294918']
There are even biblical scholars that argue over whether or not Moses actually excited, Jewish and Christian alike. For me it doesn't matter whether or not he historically did or whether the miracles scientifically happened - the point of the story still tells us about God and our relationship with Him. The Bible isn't a scientific text - but that doesn't make it any less true.
[/quote]
You posted as I was typing my post. I'm glad to see this. Agreed.

[faithcecelia]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314312104' post='2294920']
I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.


You posted as I was typing my post. I'm glad to see this. Agreed.
[/quote]


I think they may well be true in the way that some of the early saints lives are true - the stories may not be word for word what exactly happened, but they are still true because they show what happened. Like in Genesis 32 where Jacob wrestles with God all night and is left with a permanant limp. Did that really happen in a physical sense? We can never know. However we do know what it is to mentally and spiritually wrestle with God and that that does leave us permanantly changed.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1314312605' post='2294924']


I think they may well be true in the way that some of the early saints lives are true - the stories may not be word for word what exactly happened, but they are still true because they show what happened. Like in Genesis 32 where Jacob wrestles with God all night and is left with a permanant limp. Did that really happen in a physical sense? We can never know. However we do know what it is to mentally and spiritually wrestle with God and that that does leave us permanantly changed.
[/quote]
I hear ya. And I think it's fine for someone to say, okay, we don't know, I'm going to bet on the side of piety and tradition by affirming the historicity of this or that fantastic event. I'm not offended by that. But if one is going to pontificate about what is the true understanding of scripture, and condemn those who think differently, I think they ought to interact with the scholarship and evince at least the semblance of a sound epistemology.

[sixpence]

Echoing what others have said... so what if God acted through His creation, using somewhat "normal" means to provide the help that was needed? Isn't this what He does now? When scientist try to figure out "what really might have happened" and they come up with something fairly plausible, it actually makes the story that much more believable to me (rather then disproving them)... I have to admit though.... that #10 is stretching it.

Edited August 25, 2011 by sixpence

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314312104' post='2294920']
I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.


You posted as I was typing my post. I'm glad to see this. Agreed.
[/quote]
Not at all. I'd tend to agree. I was just pointing out that one can't say that an absence of archaeological evidence indicates that something didn't happen, and that one can't take Egyptian texts at face value historically. Now, I think it unlikely that we just haven't found any evidence of 40 years in the desert, given that desert conditions tend to preserve things and a large group of people would be certain to leave behind something, graves or otherwise. It's also important to consider that history as we conceive it is a relatively recent development. History in ancient times wasn't intended to give an actual play-by-play of events, but to convey a truth and show the divine working in the world and influencing events. Homer's The Iliad isn't an aberration or just for amusement, but how histories were often composed.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1314383499' post='2295337']
Not at all. I'd tend to agree. I was just pointing out that one can't say that an absence of archaeological evidence indicates that something didn't happen, and that one can't take Egyptian texts at face value historically. Now, I think it unlikely that we just haven't found any evidence of 40 years in the desert, given that desert conditions tend to preserve things and a large group of people would be certain to leave behind something, graves or otherwise. It's also important to consider that history as we conceive it is a relatively recent development. History in ancient times wasn't intended to give an actual play-by-play of events, but to convey a truth and show the divine working in the world and influencing events. Homer's The Iliad isn't an aberration or just for amusement, but how histories were often composed.
[/quote]
Amen.

[scardella]

God did it. I don't care how. That's His job.

I saw some sort of demythologizing type thing on the history channel, and it roughly agreed that the volcano was the source of the plagues, but said something about the firstborn dying because of some gas that was released that was heavier than air, so it only killed the firstborn children who slept at the foot of their fathers' cots.

I agree that even if the explanation is correct, the timing and use of it could only have happened if the Hebrews knew about it beforehand.

[tinytherese]

The one I keep hearing about is the story of the loaves and the fishes not being a miracle of Jesus but the people taking out the food that they were hiding and sharing with one another after seeing the wintess of the boy who shared his fish and bread. If Our Lord can calm a storm with His Hand, walk on water, heal the sick, raise people from the dead, and the raise from the dead Himself then multiplying fish and bread for five thousand people shouldn't be a surprise.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314312104' post='2294920']
I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.[/quote]

I am totally with you on this, especially given how important the oral tradition and storytelling is/was to the Jewish people.

Though I have to ask, given that viewpoint: If all of that can be embellished and folklore used to teach, why is the Resurrection to be taken literally? And why are you comfortable with that being true?

I've been struggling terribly with this over that past several months. I read the OT as teaching tools and allegory. I've always struggled to take the NT miracles -- indeed, the whole of our faith -- as literal and historical. I want to believe, but as I'm sure you can understand, it's super farfetched.

Not trying to play Devil's advocate or anything ... this is something I've been grappling with for a long time. It's doing a number on my faith.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1314394273' post='2295465']

I am totally with you on this, especially given how important the oral tradition and storytelling is/was to the Jewish people.

Though I have to ask, given that viewpoint: If all of that can be embellished and folklore used to teach, why is the Resurrection to be taken literally? And why are you comfortable with that being true?

I've been struggling terribly with this over that past several months. I read the OT as teaching tools and allegory. I've always struggled to take the NT miracles -- indeed, the whole of our faith -- as literal and historical. I want to believe, but as I'm sure you can understand, it's super farfetched.

Not trying to play Devil's advocate or anything ... this is something I've been grappling with for a long time. It's doing a number on my faith.
[/quote]

The same thought came to my mind at reading his post (not that he intended it to be that way.)

I suggest reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. That's filled with historical, archaeological, psychological, etc. information on Jesus. (Don't worry, it isn't overwhelming to read. I found it comprehensible.)