Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Parting the waters

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,266 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I was surprised to see that Yahoo carried an article about hydrodynamic modelling into the Exodus story of the parting of the Red Sea. In short, it is believed that if 63mph winds blew over a certain point in the Nile for a number of hours the waters would literally part leaving a wall of water on either side. This seems to fit nicely with the Biblical account.

    I'm sure there will be resistance from all sides - from those who don't believe in God and from those think that miracles cant have a naturalistic dynamic. Anyway, I found it to be an interesting read.

    https://www2.ucar.edu/news/parting-waters-computer-modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route
    Fanny is the "reed sea" story fact or fiction, i thought that story was gaining more ground in recent years?


  • #103
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The claim would only be true if the Bible taught God does not use means at any time. It doesn't.
    No actually it wouldn't. Simply claiming something was caused by God is no support for the idea that it was.

    If it started raining and I said "God did that" that would mean nothing to the question of whether God actually did it.

    The Bible can claim God did this event, but given that this event can occur naturally then the Bible's claim is rather meaningless.

    The only think the Bible claim had going for it would be if this event could not have occurred naturally. Since it now seems like it can then the Bible claim becomes as pointless someone saying "God did that" when there is lightening strike.

    Notice this is not the same as claiming we know God didn't do it. God might have made the lightening strike. But if you accept that natural events can occur on their own then simply claiming God did something is not enough to support the idea that he did.
    Sorry of the delay in reply.

    The claim was that a natural means undermined the Bible's credibility. But as I pointed out before, it was the Bible that said natural means were used. How can that undermine the Bible? You confuse this with the idea that a non-natural means would have directly supported a Divine cause, had it been proved.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    So your 'incorrectly attributed' argument was not in God's mind to prevent. It can be examined on its own merits. What are the chances of the nation caught between a massive army and the sea, and the sea dividing so they could cross it on dry land, but their enemies get caught in the returning water and are drowned?
    Over the space of all human history? Quite high I would imagine.
    Really? How often does this Red Sea parting occur? Have we one on YouTube? How many nations have been there on the occasion? Any fleeing for their lives?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    He tells us how it happened, and you believe or not. Both have eternal consequences.
    Well actually He doesn't tell me anything. 2nd century Jewish religious scholars tell me something claiming to speak for God, and I believe them or not. Just like every other religion going.
    No, you hope He is not the One who originated the writings. But if He is, He is telling you how it happened - and you will give account to Him for your unbelief.
    Like I said to PDN if you are already coming from this with a closed mind already made up then there isn't much left to discuss. If you can't put your self in the position of a non-biased observer then debating this with you is rather pointless since it comes back to rather silly statements of you telling me what God is interested in.
    I'm only pointing out the (il)logic of your comment. My religious presuppositions have nothing to do with that. My further comments were of a pastoral/evangelistic nature, for your good, but not part of the argument.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians, attempting to do so, were drowned.


  • #104
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The claim was that a natural means undermined the Bible's credibility. But as I pointed out before, it was the Bible that said natural means were used. How can that undermine the Bible?

    You are starting from a position of the Bible being true, and then saying this can't undermine it because it is true. That is illogical. You need to start from a position of neutrality.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Really? How often does this Red Sea parting occur?
    Why does it have to be that particular body of water. Surely any body of water would do so long as there are people at it trying to cross it who can thus record that the wind held the waters back.

    And people try and cross bodies of water all the time.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, you hope He is not the One who originated the writings.

    Hope is rather irrelevant. All we have is an unsubstantiated claim that who ever wrote these passages were inspired by God. You can choose to believe that if you like for what ever reason you choose, but I'm sure you appreciate that just because you believe it means little to me. The world is full of people who believe particular holy books are divinely inspired, you do nothing to distinguish yourself from all the others
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But if He is, He is telling you how it happened

    And if my uncle was a woman she would be my aunt.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm only pointing out the (il)logic of your comment. My religious presuppositions have nothing to do with that.

    You start from a position of faith and work backwards. Thus you consider God always as being in existence when examining these claims, and thus you could not see how if God always exists how such evidence could weaken the strength of these stories.

    To understand what I'm saying you need to start from a position of neutrality.


  • #105
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    The claim was that a natural means undermined the Bible's credibility. But as I pointed out before, it was the Bible that said natural means were used. How can that undermine the Bible?
    You are starting from a position of the Bible being true, and then saying this can't undermine it because it is true. That is illogical. You need to start from a position of neutrality.
    Nonsense. If it was a heathen text that spoke of such an event in those terms, the same would apply. The text asserted the truth (a natural cause was involved), yet you say a natural cause being involved undermines the text!
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Really? How often does this Red Sea parting occur?
    Why does it have to be that particular body of water. Surely any body of water would do so long as there are people at it trying to cross it who can thus record that the wind held the waters back.
    OK, how many times has such an event been recorded?
    And people try and cross bodies of water all the time.
    Yes, usually by boat. Some even risk their lives fording raging streams. But how many such waters have been recorded as parting to let them pass?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No, you hope He is not the One who originated the writings.
    Hope is rather irrelevant. All we have is an unsubstantiated claim that who ever wrote these passages were inspired by God. You can choose to believe that if you like for what ever reason you choose, but I'm sure you appreciate that just because you believe it means little to me. The world is full of people who believe particular holy books are divinely inspired, you do nothing to distinguish yourself from all the others
    Yet you still hope it is so. As to evidence for such a God, you already have that in your conscience. But you may deny that, or seek to explain its operation by evolutionary chemistry. It's there all the same.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    But if He is, He is telling you how it happened
    And if my uncle was a woman she would be my aunt.
    Wickie, the one in the dress is your auntie. And you've lived all this time thinking Violet was a strange name for a man!
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    I'm only pointing out the (il)logic of your comment. My religious presuppositions have nothing to do with that.
    You start from a position of faith and work backwards. Thus you consider God always as being in existence when examining these claims, and thus you could not see how if God always exists how such evidence could weaken the strength of these stories.

    To understand what I'm saying you need to start from a position of neutrality.
    As above, the logic works perfectly if one substitutes a heathen god. My belief does not change the argument.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


  • #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    As to evidence for such a God, you already have that in your conscience.

    My consciences tells me your god, if he exists, is a genocidal power hungry maniac.

    But my conscience is influenced by selfish sinful thoughts, right?

    It is odd that I would think butchering children to death is wrong and I'm the one who gets blamed with having the corrupted conscience :rolleyes:

    It is also odd that your god's notions of morality seem so inline with the notions of morality of the ancient barbaric warring civilizations of Earth, around the same time the concept of your god first appeared in history. :rolleyes:

    All very odd, but again it must be the corruption in side of me.


  • #107
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    My consciences tells me your god, if he exists, is a genocidal power hungry maniac.
    You're confusing your conscience with your heart/mind.
    But my conscience is influenced by selfish sinful thoughts, right?
    No, your conscience is suppressed by your selfish sinful thoughts. It doesn't change its view, you just stop it being heard.
    It is odd that I would think butchering children to death is wrong and I'm the one who gets blamed with having the corrupted conscience
    You are allowing a general principle to deny a higher specific one - that God is Lord over all His creation and can properly determine their end.
    It is also odd that your god's notions of morality seem so inline with the notions of morality of the ancient barbaric warring civilizations of Earth,
    You are confusing God's right to rule with the newer notion that man is himself the only source of moral right. Hasn't done much for the morality of the powerful atheists in history.
    around the same time the concept of your god first appeared in history.
    I think you mean the time known to historical record, outside of the Bible. But the record is not the reality.
    All very odd, but again it must be the corruption in side of me.
    You've got that bit right.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”


  • #108
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    The reason this experiment was done in the first place was because of the story recorded in Exodus. A story which has God telling Moses to stretch forth his staff in the sight of all the people and to tell them to stand fast and see the salvation of the LORD, after which (coincidently enough) this event took place. Without that story the research would not have been carried out and hence we would not know or care either way.

    So if what happened was just a freak happening of nature (but it did happen) then the rest of the story (i.e. God talking to Moses beforehand) is just made up. Can this be proven either way? No.

    As an aside, why is it that God manipulating the wind in the Old Testament is not miracle but Jesus doing it in the New Testament is?


  • #109
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    As an aside, why is it that God manipulating the wind in the Old Testament is not miracle but Jesus doing it in the New Testament is?

    Well presumably because such high velocity ferocious winds would have killed all those who experienced them?


  • #110
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Well presumably because such high velocity ferocious winds would have killed all those who experienced them?

    Conservative estimates state that 63 MPH winds (i.e. tropical storm strength - see chart below) are strong enough to cause the effect. So although very strong winds, not nearly strong enough to kill anybody on their own, (with the exception of maybe the very weak and infirm which according to the scriptures - Psalm 105:37 - there were none), and especially when you couple that with the fact that there was no debris flying around the place, which in tropical storms are the main killers not so much the winds themselves. So yeah, very strong winds but still possible for fairly strong people to make it across such distances in one piece.

    hurricane_colorbar.jpg


  • #111
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:

    You're confusing your conscience with your heart/mind.

    Well of course, I must be doing something wrong if I don't think Hebrew armies butching to death women and children is morally ok. Obviously the fault lies with me.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, your conscience is suppressed by your selfish sinful thoughts. It doesn't change its view, you just stop it being heard.

    So the voice in my head that says you shouldn't hack children to death with swords is not my conscience, but instead my "selfish sinful thoughts"? That makes sense, it is rather selfish of me to refuse to accept the promise of eternal after life in order to stick by a moral principle that you shouldn't butcher children to death.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You are allowing a general principle to deny a higher specific one - that God is Lord over all His creation and can properly determine their end.

    Yes I am, because there is no "unless you are Lord over all Creation" at the end of my conscience ... sorry ... selfish sinful thoughts saying you shouldn't hack children to death with swords.

    My conscience ... sorry .. selfish sinful thoughts tells me it is wrong because it causes suffering and pain and fear. God doing it still causes suffering and pain and fear and as such is as wrong.

    But again that is probably just me being selfish. After all, contrast the wonderful things I get for believing this (eternity in hell being tortured) with what you get for believing that God is justified in hacking children to death (eternity in heaven).

    It is clear that it is only my selfish desire for eternity in hell is motivating me to take such a selfish and immoral view as to the acceptability of butchering children to death. You are taking the unselfish pious route of ignoring the immorality of killing children and you get nothing for this view, other than eternity in heaven ;)
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You are confusing God's right to rule with the newer notion that man is himself the only source of moral right.

    Ummm, that doesn't explain though why God's rules look almost identical to the rules that ancient barbaric civilizations came up with, including sanctioned slavery and genocide.

    It is almost as if these people were coming up with the rules themselves and then using what ever god they believed in to justify them.

    But again that is just my selfish sinful thoughts ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,266 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    is there any truth in the rumour that the entire red sea story was a mistranslation and it actually happened at this location.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea


  • #113
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    is there any truth in the rumour that the entire red sea story was a mistranslation and it actually happened at this location.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea

    Well, 'the whole story' wouldn't be a mistranslation, since the bits about Moses raising his staff, the wind blowing, the Israelites crossing over, and the Egyptians following and drowning, would all still be correctly translated.

    But I think it's quite possible that it was the Sea of Reeds rather than the Red Sea where this miracle took place.


  • #114
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Wicknight wrote:
    ]Well of course, I must be doing something wrong if I don't think Hebrew armies butchering to death women and children is morally ok. Obviously the fault lies with me.

    It would appear so.

    You seem to have a problem with evil being punished and so have a problem with people who commit evil suffering (in return) the pain and terror of such a death as well as the anguish of watching their infants being put to the sword.

    If inclined (as atheists are wont) to focus on the innocent child then I'd ask what happens when you strip the emotive words away and look at the situation from the infants perspective.

    Given that an infant wouldn't have an adults appreciation of terror, it's suffering in that regard can't be seen as all that tremendous. And when it comes to the physical suffering, you're talking about the potential for a swift death (again if discounting the gruesome appearance to which the infant itself has no conscious exposure). The alternative would be to leave the infant alive to die of exposure and starvation.


    Where precisely does the locus of your objection lie - given that the removal of life isn't something we could morally object to (we weren't promised that we would live forever afterall). It seems to me that removal of life by the sword is about as merciful a means as was available to the infant. And as terrorising as availabe for those being subjected to punishment.


  • #115
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It would appear so.
    Indeed
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You seem to have a problem with evil being punished and so have a problem with people who commit evil suffering (in return) the pain and terror of such a death as well as the anguish of watching their infants being put to the sword.

    Yes I admit I have a problem with hacking to death someones children in order to punish them.

    Again, that is obviously my sinful selfish nature shinning through. God (and various Mexican drug cartels) disagree and as he owns all of us he can do with us as he likes. If he wanted to rape my girlfriend and then have her burnt in acid, that would be ok because he owns her.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If inclined (as atheists are wont) to focus on the innocent child then I'd ask what happens when you strip the emotive words away and look at the situation from the infants perspective.

    I'm not sure, what is the perspective of being hacked to death while all around you Hebrew soldiers sack your city, kill your family and friends?

    I would imagine it is pretty horrible. But then I'm clearly biased. It could be a very nice way to die.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Given that an infant wouldn't have an adults appreciation of terror, it's suffering in that regard can't be seen as all that tremendous.

    Not unless you have a sinful nature you mean?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And when it comes to the physical suffering, you're talking about the potential for a swift death (again if discounting the gruesome appearance to which the infant itself has no conscious exposure). The alternative would be to leave the infant alive to die of exposure and starvation.

    No, actually that wouldn't be the alternative. I can think of plenty of alternatives for an omnipotent being.

    But again, who am I to tell a god how to carry out his genocide. If he wants to use a marraduding army who am I to know that wasn't the most moral, humane way to do it.

    Yes I can think of plenty of ways that seem more humane but in my sinful state, with all these corrupt ideas of lessing suffering and pain, I'm in no position to say this.

    The rest of us are pretty lucky you unselfish Christians are around to let us know that genocide by marrauding army is in fact humane, because otherwise we would never know. :)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Where precisely is the locus of your objection lie - given that the removal of life isn't something we could morally object to (we weren't promised that we would live forever afterall).

    Very true. It is just selfish of these children to expect not to get hacked to death by Hebrew soldiers, and selfish of me to view that action as immoral. Who are they do expect this, don't they know how lucky they are to exist at all? And so what if they think they would rather have not existed in the first place, they are obviously just being selfish.

    The only people not being selfish are those who submit to the view that God can do what he likes with us no matter what that is (and who are rewarded with ever lasting life in paradise for being so unselfish ;))
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It seems to me that removal of life by the sword is about as merciful a means as was available to the infant.

    Well yes obviously, I think in this enlightened time most people think being hacked to death by a sword is the most humane way to kill someone, that is just a given.

    In fact I've heard that America used to kill people with lethal injection (which puts the person to sleep first before stopping their heart) but have since seen the light and now execute people by tying them to poles and running a sword through them multiple times until they bleed out or they hit a vital organ.

    The screams from the prisoners is a bit off putting granted, but once you know this is the most humane way to kill them it isn't too difficult to put that out of your mind and just focus on how luck these men are that they aren't receiving the barbaric lethal injection.


  • #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Guys, can we keep the thread on the topic of the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus account please?

    We've had plenty of other threads in the forum already for Wicknight to share his gripes with God in general.


  • #117
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Guys, can we keep the thread on the topic of the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus account please?

    We've had plenty of other threads in the forum already for Wicknight to share his gripes with God in general.

    And for you guys to tell me how selfish I am ;)

    Right, moving on


  • #118
    bridgetown1
    Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭bridgetown1


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Given that an infant wouldn't have an adults appreciation of terror, it's suffering in that regard can't be seen as all that tremendous. And when it comes to the physical suffering, you're talking about the potential for a swift death (again if discounting the gruesome appearance to which the infant itself has no conscious exposure). The alternative would be to leave the infant alive to die of exposure and starvation.



    i have heard the exact same argument being used to support abortion.


Advertisement