Passover to Exodus, let the story be told

[ding]

I don't see why they wouldn't write it down.

Any time there was famine and drought people in surrounding areas headed for the Nile Delta... so that much is probably true. Otherwise the story is pretty fantastic and full of anachronisms. Taken as a foundational myth or a morality tale of redemption it makes sense.

You mean besides because it wasn't practical. When exactly do you think the widespread dissemination of written materials occurred?

Which story? Exodus?

 

[alang1216]

Which part? That it may have been borrowed from other people? I was thinking primarily about Exodus. But It would also probably apply to the the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I think embellishments are throughout their texts.

I think we're in agreement here. Embellishments and selective storytelling to make theological points.

Or that they were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries? That observation was made by Huston Smith in his book The Illustrated World's Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions. He's a pretty renowned expert on world religions. Maybe you have heard of him.

Had not heard of him but appeals to authority don't persuade me much.

Yes, I have read the OT. And if you understand Leviticus 18:1-30 you would see how they were teaching to not behave as their neighbors did. Which confirms the observation by Huston Smith.

I don't recall having to tell my kids to do their homework, they were very conscientious. I do recall having to tell them to clean their rooms since that was not something they did. If the Israelites were better behaved than their neighbors, Leviticus would have complained about something else.

 

[RodISHI]

Passover to Exodus, let the story be told

Passover, Hebrew Pesaḥ or Pesach, in Judaism, holiday commemorating the Hebrews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt and the “passing over” of the forces of destruction, or the sparing of the firstborn of the Israelites, when the Lord “smote the land of Egypt” on the eve of the Exodus.

The above troubles me a bit. Since the Jews knew the angel of death was coming and the only way, they could be spared is to sprinkle lambs blood on their door why didn’t the warn others who were not Jews?

The part of scripture troubles me to, the idea the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Scripture tells another story—

(Gen 47:1 KJV) Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.

(Gen 47:3 KJV) And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.

(Gen 47:6 KJV) The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

(Gen 47:11 KJV) And Joseph placed his father [ISRAEL] and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Clearly the Jews were not slaves in Egypt. Joseph ruled over Egypt and would have continued to rule until Moses destroys it all.

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Why smite you your fellow?

A fellow? The Egyptians were treating the Jews as fellow Egyptians.

Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelled in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well. Moses and all the others flee Egypt and are scattered throughout the land.
Exodus 2:11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his own people and observed their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people.

The above marks the beginning of the great exodus. The Jews were not slaves, the Jews ruled over Egypt and the fled because Moses murders a man in cold blood.

The above is the true history of the Jews of old. Have they changed their ways?

You are welcome to correct me where corrections are needed.

Better keep on reading for there is a time to come that the pharaoh doesn't 'know who Joseph is'. Not only that like everyone else most generally does you are ignoring the Spirit and the context of the written record for Adam aka human to be able to connect to that Spirit of God through the Son of God. Along with the fact you are probably not even considering that the whole written record is about the "host of heaven and earth" that were put/planted into this radical earth by the breath of God to rule over it. King of kings and all that.










Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות‎ sabaoth or tzva'ot, "armies") refers to the army (Luke 2:13) of angels mentioned both in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, as well as other Jewish and Christian texts.

Heavenly host - Wikipedia​

The Host of Heaven and of Earth. - Bible Hub​

https://biblehub.com › the_work_of_the_holy_spirit


6: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." So also Psalm civ.30: "Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, ...

 

[ding]

I think we're in agreement here. Embellishments and selective storytelling to make theological points.

I'm not sure they believe they were making theological points. I think they were recording their history. Their beliefs about God is intricately woven into their lives and history.

07 Judaism

Had not heard of him but appeals to authority don't persuade me much.

I wasn't making an appeal to authority. I was crediting my source. But anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as more than 90% of what we know was accepted on authority of others.

I don't recall having to tell my kids to do their homework, they were very conscientious. I do recall having to tell them to clean their rooms since that was not something they did. If the Israelites were better behaved than their neighbors, Leviticus would have complained about something else.

Telling your kids to do their homework has nothing to do with what I am telling you. It is quite natural and common that people with superior talents in a discipline instruct those with lesser talents. So arguing that no instruction should be needed is a dead end argument. The reality is that the Jewish people have been remarkably successful and they credit God for their success. It should be self evident that successful behaviors naturally lead to success just as failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. As a rule kids that study more will be more successful than kids that study less. So it shouldn't be a surprise that a people that behaved morally would be more successful than a people that behaved immorally. So let me flip your argument around... are you saying that if your kids cleaned their rooms better, YOU would find something else to complain about? Because I think you are missing the point. It's not an accident that the Jewish people have contributed to the world disproportionately to their numbers. I think a little credit should be given to them.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not sure they believe they were making theological points. I think they were recording their history. Their beliefs about God is intricately woven into their lives and history.

They had plenty of stories, many probably didn't make it into the Torah. The Torah was written by Jews in a foreign country hoping to return to the promised land. A problem for them was that there were plenty of Jews already living in Judea when the Babylonian exile ended. There was a natural tension between the Jews of Babylon and the Jews of Judea. Who got to say what God wanted from them?

I think Huston Smith was wrong about a number of things, including "From a very early date, possibly from the very beginning of the biblical record, the Jews were monotheists". I think there was plenty of evidence they were pagans for a very, very long while. Certainly throughout the Torah.

So it shouldn't be a surprise that a people that behaved morally would be more successful than a people that behaved immorally.

Alas, I think just the opposite is the case. Peaceful societies are generally destroyed by their more aggressive neighbors.

 

[ding]

They had plenty of stories, many probably didn't make it into the Torah. The Torah was written by Jews in a foreign country hoping to return to the promised land. A problem for them was that there were plenty of Jews already living in Judea when the Babylonian exile ended. There was a natural tension between the Jews of Babylon and the Jews of Judea. Who got to say what God wanted from them?

I think Huston Smith was wrong about a number of things, including "From a very early date, possibly from the very beginning of the biblical record, the Jews were monotheists". I think there was plenty of evidence they were pagans for a very, very long while. Certainly throughout the Torah.


Alas, I think just the opposite is the case. Peaceful societies are generally destroyed by their more aggressive neighbors.

That's an interesting window into how your mind works.

 

[alang1216]

Re: Peaceful societies are generally destroyed by their more aggressive neighbors.

That's an interesting window into how your mind works.

Can you dispute it? Seems to me there are no peaceful societies so it is the mind of the Creator that is so interesting. Personally, I think everything evolves and in a world of survival of the fittest, you need to be aggressive, not passive.

 

[ding]

Re: Peaceful societies are generally destroyed by their more aggressive neighbors.

Can you dispute it? Seems to me there are no peaceful societies so it is the mind of the Creator that is so interesting. Personally, I think everything evolves and in a world of survival of the fittest, you need to be aggressive, not passive.

Yes. Societies have a life cycle like everything else. They rise and fall. You are discussing something entirely different. It almost sounds as if you think aggressive societies are successful societies. That just hasn't been the case. You ought to know from your own experiences that virtue is the greatest organizing principle.

Are you aggressive? Because it's been my experience that aggression never led to anything but fights whereas collaboration and virtue inherits the earth. But maybe your personal experiences are different.

 

[alang1216]

Yes. Societies have a life cycle like everything else. They rise and fall. You are discussing something entirely different. It almost sounds as if you think aggressive societies are successful societies. That just hasn't been the case. You ought to know from your own experiences that virtue is the greatest organizing principle.

All of the successful ancient societies were aggressive, including the Israelites. Or do you know one I don't?

Are you aggressive? Because it's been my experience that aggression never led to anything but fights whereas collaboration and virtue inherits the earth. But maybe your personal experiences are different.

Interactions within a society are very different than those between societies. I seem to recall how Jacob stole his brother's birthright by fooling Isaac, the patriarch of Israel, and ended up blessed by God. Quite the morality play there.

 

[ding]

All of the successful ancient societies were aggressive, including the Israelites. Or do you know one I don't?

Interactions within a society are very different than those between societies. I seem to recall how Jacob stole his brother's birthright by fooling Isaac, the patriarch of Israel, and ended up blessed by God. Quite the morality play there.

Only to enemies, bro. You just said it yourself.

I love how you can take a tale that is meant to serve as a cautionary tale and use it to disparage what you fundamentally dislike. Maybe you are aggressive after all.

But I think it's great that you argue against virtue because it doesn't seem like you have any.

 

[alang1216]

Only to enemies, bro. You just said it yourself.

I love how you can take a tale that is meant to serve as a cautionary tale and use it to disparage what you fundamentally dislike. Maybe you are aggressive after all.

But I think it's great that you argue against virtue because it doesn't seem like you have any.

Or I see the world as it is, not the way I wished it to be. Still waiting for your example of a successful and peaceful society. Maybe you're passive aggressive?

 

[ding]

Or I see the world as it is, not the way I wished it to be. Still waiting for your example of a successful and peaceful society. Maybe you're passive aggressive?

All societies that were successful were peaceful because they were virtuous. The moment they became selfish was their downfall. But I have no need to convince you. You should start treating people like shit and learn the lesson for yourself. Because it does not seem it is self evident to you that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

 

[alang1216]

All societies that were successful were peaceful because they were virtuous. The moment they became selfish was their downfall.

When were the Romans successful AND peaceful?

But I have no need to convince you. You should start treating people like shit and learn the lesson for yourself. Because it does not seem it is self evident to you that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

By definition successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure so that says nothing. I'm still waiting for examples where a society being nice to other societies led to success. If you don't have any examples to offer you might want to reassess your position.

 

[ding]

When were the Romans successful AND peaceful?

By definition successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure so that says nothing. I'm still waiting for examples where a society being nice to other societies led to success. If you don't have any examples to offer you might want to reassess your position.

I think it says everything. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two happy people will always have a better relationship than two bitter people. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. And the list goes on and on. And it's not just some of the times it's all of the times.

And the very same principle applies to two nations.

I don't need to provide examples for something that is solved by inspection.

 

[watchingfromafar]

more than 90% of what we know was accepted on authority of others.

Your use of the term authority is misplaced.

First comes thought, then ideas which are then transformed into knowledge, resulting into inventive ideas that requires no authority at all. I believe authority is way down on the food chain.

-

 

[ding]

Your use of the term authority is misplaced.

First comes thought, then ideas which are then transformed into knowledge, resulting into inventive ideas that requires no authority at all. I believe authority is way down on the food chain.

-

Accepting knowledge on authority of others just means that you weren't the one who figured it out or discovered it or have personal knowledge of.

For instance... I have never been to Istanbul but I accept on the authority of others that Istanbul is a city that exists.

Over 90% of what we know we accepted on the authority of others.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Accepting knowledge on authority of others just means that you weren't the one who figured it out or discovered it or have personal knowledge of.
For instance... I have never been to Istanbul but I accept on the authority of others that Istanbul is a city that exists.
Over 90% of what we know we accepted on the authority of others.

I accept your answer and acknowledge my mistake

-

 

[alang1216]

I think it says everything. Two caring people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people. Two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two happy people will always have a better relationship than two bitter people. Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. And the list goes on and on. And it's not just some of the times it's all of the times.

And the very same principle applies to two nations.

I don't need to provide examples for something that is solved by inspection.

So you extrapolate from individuals to nations? I won't argue about individuals since it seems intuitive and I guessing there are no studies but it seems like a huge leap of faith (get it?) to say that nations are the same as people and their relationships with other nations are exactly the same. You can proclaim "it is because I say it is" but don't expect to convince me.

 

[surada]

You mean besides because it wasn't practical. When exactly do you think the widespread dissemination of written materials occurred?

Which story? Exodus?

They have found thousands and thousands of clay tablets in Dilmun, Ras Shamra and Sumer so somebody could read and write.

 

[ding]

So you extrapolate from individuals to nations? I won't argue about individuals since it seems intuitive and I guessing there are no studies but it seems like a huge leap of faith (get it?) to say that nations are the same as people and their relationships with other nations are exactly the same. You can proclaim "it is because I say it is" but don't expect to convince me.

Think about it. It's no different. Nations are led by people. Dialogues are between people. Agreements are reached and honored by people. Allies treat each other with respect. The more acrimonious the relationship, the less chance it has of being a successful partnership.

There are no studies that I am aware of to the contrary either. Like I said, this can be solved through inspection. Are you familiar with that term? Solved by or through inspection?