There are differences between the ten plagues and the bubonic plague. The most obvious one being that the 10 plagues freed hundreds of slaves from captivity.
What has that got to do with the plague being caused by god or not? Is the freedom of slaves a necessary requirement for god to act?
Do not forget god can get angry and cause plague for minor reasons such as people complaining too much, (Deut). As such, would it not be prevalent to state that god actually caused the bubonic plague because of his anger and wrath focused at Europeans?
So why is it, someone who will happily assert that the ten plagues were caused by god, then state that rats caused the bubonic plague? The most likely explanation for this, is that there is no NNT, (New New Testament), detailing any of god's actions within the last two thousand years.
Perhaps if god was to write another biography, we would learn that he had caused the bubonic plague and other such disasters.
The amusing thing is, that if someone sat down and wrote the NNT, and claimed god had dictated it to them, you would shrug it off and consider them mad men. And yet on the other hand you just accept the word of people you don't know, who knew nothing about disease, and nothing about the planet they lived on.
I guess it's just so much easier to dismiss someone as a lunatic when you can see them.
My take on natural disasters like regional floods etc. is due to original sin. It’s mans fault that these things are happening in other words.
...
The alternative to this explanation is everything just happens (there can be technical explanations but no reasons why, think about it), which in turn seems illogical to me.
What kind of 'reason' do you want?
Back to the plagues. If a scientist accepts the Bible as truth then I wonder how they could explain ten plagues being unleashed within days of each other on the same people?
Pfisteria.
You see, fish become covered in sores and end up dead. They leak a red substance into the water, which turns the water red. This is pfisteria, which is caused by pollution.
The pollution would have driven the frogs inland, where they would die causing a mass explosion of flies and lice, (in the bible it mentions that all the frogs died and were thrown into a massive pile. This
would cause a mass infestation of flies, mosquito and other such insects). These flies would "hand out" all kinds of diseases, to people, livestock, and especially young children.
Also there is no reason to say "within days". This whole story could have taken months, and most probably did.
The New Jerusalem Bible says:
Exodus 7:25 'After Yahweh struck the river, seven days went by'.
So we're talking at least a week before these two plagues - which seems accurate, given the rate at which pfisteria does it's job.
Now tell me David, would you expect the Egyptians or Jews capable of working any of this out? Do you think somehow they could have figured out what pfisteria is? Do you think if people could not work out what cased the bubonic plague, that they would have put it all on a deity instead?
But no, let's just trust the word of people who knew nothing. People who had absolutely no idea about anything, let alone diagnosing pfisteria.
Also the plagues lifted within days, very different to the bubonic plague. As you know it is impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer but I can only hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears.
There is no indication that this took a day or two.
I think you've missed what I have been saying. In our modern times, even most christians will concur that earthquakes happen due to movement of tectonic plates, tornados happen due to wind patterns or whatever, and so on. They will not turn round and say "god did it". The only time they will seemingly do that, is when an old book says that was the case.
As I mentioned earlier, if the NNT was written, most christians would then say god
did cause the bubonic plague, the LA earthquakes and so on. It is merely because an old shepherd tells you that god did it, that you say "god did it". In instances where no old shepherds have said "god did it", you accept the scientific explanation, and god takes a back seat.
Does it not seem apparent that these people simply did not know the reasons behind the disasters that afflicted them, and if they had have done, god would never have been mentioned?
Is it not worth some time spent considering that perhaps these people simply explained a natural occurrence in the only way they could? Is it not worth some time considering that their explanations are completely invalid, and while it served them well enough, it simply is not true?
Yes, not so long ago it was believed that draining the body of blood would cure many illnesses, yet in the Bible it says that the blood is the life just people ignored it.
There must come a time for all of us, when the bible is best ignored. That includes you.
A little while back, someone sat down and read Deut, and found out that god had commanded that a person take their child to town if he was naughty, and get him stoned to death.
Now, this person sat down and contemplated it for a moment.. He said to himself; "Well, I know it's the word of god, but somehow it just seems too heartless, too immoral. I wont do it."
And since that day, people no longer take their sons to town to get them stoned to death.
You, me, the priest at the local church, everyone... ignores the bible to some degree.
Nope. Maybe in your mind.
I've explained it above. It's nothing to do with "my mind", but how things actually are. For the most part, all religious people will accept science. It's a must. When you're dying, it's very unlikely you'll say it's god's plan because he loves you, and be happy you're about to meet him, but instead you will ask science to save and prolong your life here - which actually keeps you away from that which you apparently desire the most. I could list a billion examples, but there's little need. Science works, but like the bible, christians pick and choose which parts they want to accept.
That’s the problem with all of the atheists; they think they have all the answers typically through science and that most of the world’s population is delusional except them. Science is a good tool but it doesn’t contain all the answers by a long shot, and good science never pretends too.
I think you missed my point. I am not implying that science knows it all, but that as it progresses, god moves further into the distance. As science determines a truth, religion tries to change in order to stay in line with that reality.
I don’t know much about Sumerian text, certainly not as much as you so how do the linguists know that they’re interpreting anything correct?
In exactly the same manner they know they're interpreting the bible correctly. As with the bible, there will be some slight discrepancies, but it works in general.
I know this is about as layman an answer as can be given, but I do not have a degree in the subject, and it is something that needs to be studied to understand fully, (the same as everything else I guess).
Sumerian is still present in modern day language. 7 of the 12 Israeli months are Sumerian words, (and gods).. for instance Tammuz. It is also generally similar to Hebrew, (the word Shemesh, for sun, is written as Shamash in Akkadian).
Further to that, translation tablets were found by archaeologists, that had dictionaries carved on them, saying; this word in Sumerian is this word in Akkadian, this word in Akkadian is this word in Assyrian, etc.
The Sumerians were the forefathers of the Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians and the Hebrews, and as such language has filtered down from there. We can see that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy are all based upon Sumerian stories, Abraham was from Sumeria, and the bible even places the garden of eden in Sumeria. In Sumerian, E-din means 'house of purity'. The story was that the humans were put to work in the gardens of the house of purity, (i.e the garden of eden).
I don’t think the mention of “a deity” by the experts (unless you’re an expert) is unfounded; I’d call it imaginative license which is used throughout this type of work.
That's fair enough, but imaginative license doesn't imply truth. They do not know. They are happy to state they do not know, but based upon understanding of cultures as a whole, they can make an
assumption that the sumbols represent a deity, or perhaps just the contents of the jar...
One day they might be able to work it out, and realise that these people worshipped a god named 'pickled cucumber'.
In other words, the Sumerian texts are open to the same criticism.
There is a big difference.
Apologies, wsu.edu, (Washington State University).
Well, the Bible says so. I trust what is written in the Bible. Now I can’t explain why in a handful of sentences, but let me just say that to get where I’ve got has involved much experience, study, an open mind and above all the willingness to have my pride bashed.
Ok, that's fair enough.
Let me ask you a quick question though.
How extensive was your study?
(Before you answer... I'm not asking how extensively you studied the bible - you probably did study that extensively. What I
am asking, is how extensive you studied other religions, and other texts. Did you study Hindu texts, Muslim texts, Sumerian texts, etc etc etc? If the answer is no, then wasn't all of your study completely biased? Would it not then be true that your study wasn't a study of possible choice and truth, but a study of something you already wanted to believe was true?)
I believe all people are capable of having faith, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some people are just too proud to get on their knees and pray and ask for forgiveness.
Can you not understand that pride is not the issue? It's a common religious mans mistake. Let me try and hopefully clear it up for you..
I don't get down on my knees and beg leprechauns to tell me how to get to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It has nothing to do with pride, just no evidence that leprechauns exist.
By that same token, I don't just get onto my knees asking for anything from beings that have no evidence to suggest they are real.
Pride is irrelevant.
Were you saying that age and prominance determine reality?
Second one up. How do you conclude there isn’t?
By exactly the same method I conclude there aren't leprechauns. Can you honestly fault me for that?
Apart from some things, public opinion matters not in this subject.
And as a result, that tiny little cult of 50 people could have the right answer, as opposed to the several billion christians. Without studying each and every single belief on the planet, how can you work out which, if any, are true?
If everyone followed Jesus’ teachings don’t you think the world would be a better place?
That can be summarised as: "If everyone was a christian don't you think the world would be a better place?"
My answer to that would be: "certainly", but would also be the exact same answer if you had have said: "If everyone just agreed with each other don't you think the world would be a better place?"
Because man has his own opinions, feelings, thoughts and ideas that often conflict with others, there will always be disharmony. The only way to change that is to make us all identical. Although being identical would make the world run smoother for us, would you really want that?
That is seemingly what every christian wants, and is asking for.. including jesus.
While religion strives to make us all sheep, science explains that we're all unique.
Love your God with all your heart, mind and soul (pretty difficult if you don’t think you have one)
Love your god? What if your god is someone else, for instance Apollo?
and love your neighbour as yourself. Who else said this before Jesus?
Three things..
A) because we're all different, there will always be disharmony. Loving your neighbour is futile - unless you're identical.
B) jesus never wanted us to love our neighbour.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34)
This would show jesus was far more interested in causing the disharmony that you credit him for trying to remove. How can I love them when jesus wants me to go against them?
C) Perhaps nobody said it before him, but given his other statements, it is meaningless.
Why? Do you think men are gods?
"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves.."
Likeness being the keyword. Find a good commentary if you like on this passage, it all makes sense.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. The text implies that he is referring to beings of the same nature and status to himself - which would disclude angels.
I think it’s being very honest, not like most sites.
Sure, and the end result is that they'll probably never know what the symbols mean - and as such, it's far too early to assume it related to a culture worshipping one god and one god only.
SnakeLord, there goes your imaginative license. Let me use mine then. The spokesman said “a deity” because no other deities were found on the object.
Nothing was found on the object, other than some symbols - which these very same people state could be the contents of the jar. This deity of yours could be nothing more than "green olives".
Where do you think those words came from? The same people whose religion was monotheistic, so why are you applying our language limitations to scripture written long ago and then strangely investigating the English wording?
Well, there is a lot of evidence to show that the early OT was based upon Sumerian texts, and that the plurality shown in the early OT is a sign of trying to amalgamate many gods into one. The resulting 'Lord', shows a sign of rank status among a collection, not a sole being.
Let's consider for a moment...
The bible puts the garden of eden in Sumeria. From this we can conclude that the very first people on the planet were Sumerians. Sumerian texts predate the bible by over 1.5 millennia, and yet those stories can be seen within biblical texts. As a result, we can clearly see that these people were created, wrote about it, and then the stories followed them throughout the ages.
Eventually people have thought.. "why have many gods, when one can be powerful enough to do everything?" They rewrote the stories using a single god. However, translation of the stories still left some errors with plurality and ranks, which can be seen in the bible.
This is where I would certainly be heading (everyone has lied at least), but I have Jesus on my side, and His blood covers my sin.
I too have lied before, but my humanity covers my sin.
What have you got to loose by believing in Jesus Christ? Believing in God doesn’t shut off your brain you know, if anything it opens your mind.
I apologise, but I do not see it as a competition. Alas, many people do. It has nothing to do with losing or winning.. I merely follow the evidence. I don't believe dogs have seven legs, because there's no evidence to suggest they do. The same applies here.
but in my mind the line between faith and fact is very blurred.
How so?
Scary!