Earthling
David Henson
Why try to defend such a flawed work?
Never have a rebuttal do you? How many years were you a Christian?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why try to defend such a flawed work?
...where did the cattle of verse 19 come from if "all the cattle of Egypt died" in verse 6?
They took the cows of the Israelites (which were untouched). Because you know, slaves don't really own their property.
So the military horses survived and the rest turned into cows which the Israelites and Egyptians exchanged a couple of times whenever there was lull between plagues? Not really helping me to resolve the apparent contradiction I'm afraid.How about this . . . there's a difference between horses that are livestock and horses that are used in the army?
So the military horses survived and the rest turned into cows which the Israelites and Egyptians exchanged a couple of times whenever there was lull between plagues? Not really helping me to resolve the apparent contradiction I'm afraid.
You are right about the horses - it doesn't specifically say that all the horses died, but wrong about the plagues - Exodus 9:6 does say that "all the cattle of Egypt died". But then God warns Pharaoh in Exodus 9:19 to "gather thy cattle" and bring them in from the field because of the impending plague of hail...
...so - where did the cattle of verse 19 come from if "all the cattle of Egypt died" in verse 6?
Yeah OK - but I was asking about cows - in Exodus 9:6 all the Egyptians cattle died and in Exodus 9:19 they seem to have sprung back to life again. @Samantha Rinne explained that the Egyptians stole the Israelites' cattle after all theirs had died - but by the next chapter, Pharaoh is forbidding the Israelites to take their cows for a picnic in the wilderness - which doesn't make a lot of sense if he has just taken all their cows away...not only that, but when the Israelites left Egypt (with the Egyptian army in hot pursuit on the newly resurrected horses) they took a great herd of cattle with them (Exodus 12:38)No God only said that Egypt's horses, livestock from the fields, would be effected by the plague, because he wanted to preserve Egypt's horses used by the army, that were not in fields, so he could show Israel that God, Jehovah, was mightier than any army, the strength of which in those days, was primarily the horse driven chariots. Israel was limited in the amount of horses they could gather for this reason as well.
Doesn't help because that means that verse 6 means that all the Egyptian "livestock" (of all kinds presumably) died. And the question then is where did the "livestock" of verse 19 come from?The Hebrew text doesn’t say “cattle” it says “livestock”.
Those that weren’t “in the field”, as I explained.Doesn't help because that means that verse 6 means that all the Egyptian "livestock" (of all kinds presumably) died. And the question then is where did the "livestock" of verse 19 come from?
Yeah OK - but I was asking about cows - in Exodus 9:6 all the Egyptians cattle died and in Exodus 9:19 they seem to have sprung back to life again. @Samantha Rinne explained that the Egyptians stole the Israelites' cattle after all theirs had died - but by the next chapter, Pharaoh is forbidding the Israelites to take their cows for a picnic in the wilderness - which doesn't make a lot of sense if he has just taken all their cows away...not only that, but when the Israelites left Egypt (with the Egyptian army in hot pursuit on the newly resurrected horses) they took a great herd of cattle with them (Exodus 12:38)
Ah! So they took their cows (etc.) inside - that must have been when the phrase "holy crap!" was coined. And that old Egyptian ballad "Oh show me a home, where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of sh1t" Pharaoh was a bit pissed though so I'm guessing Mrs Pharaoh must have told him "you're not bringing that bloody thing in the house" and all his cows died in the field. I must admit its all starting to make more sense now!Those that weren’t “in the field”, as I explained.
Apparently the confusion is more to do with when the King James Bible was compiled.Perhaps that's where the confusion is?
Ah! So they took their cows (etc.) inside - that must have been when the phrase "holy crap!" was coined. And that old Egyptian ballad "Oh show me a home, where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of sh1t" Pharaoh was a bit pissed though so I'm guessing Mrs Pharaoh must have told him "you're not bringing that bloody thing in the house" and all his cows died in the field. I must admit its all starting to make more sense now!
Apparently the confusion is more to do with when the King James Bible was compiled.
Lol.Ah! So they took their cows (etc.) inside - that must have been when the phrase "holy crap!" was coined. And that old Egyptian ballad "Oh show me a home, where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of sh1t" Pharaoh was a bit pissed though so I'm guessing Mrs Pharaoh must have told him "you're not bringing that bloody thing in the house" and all his cows died in the field. I must admit its all starting to make more sense now!
Your point was rebutted. You as much as admitted to that.Never have a rebuttal do you? How many years were you a Christian?
Why defend such a flawed work?
I always wonder why people want to reduce their own scripture to something historically accurate or like a scientific text. If one guy writes that there's 800 horses somewhere and another writes 8000, that's a clue that this may not be all that accurate. Someone misplaced a zero and no one cared to correct it assuming they even read the two texts.
Go back and quote properly and I will try. Quoting out of context is often done as an attempt to lie through omission. There was no excuse to edit such a short post.Could you rephrase the question?
"Rules of engagement?" Are you being serious? There are no such "rules." Saying there are is basically admitting that God sanctions war under some kind of "proper" circumstances. There are no such circumstances. To say that there are is ludicrous. You have nothing to back up that claim - except maybe that The Bible tells that God supposedly told some people that it was "okay" to kill, pillage, and take as slaves their various enemies of the time. You don't find it at all a little "too convenient" that when God's "chosen people" were having some difficulties with other tribes that God appeared and told them, specifically, that it was "okay" to do these things? What I am getting at is that war is so obviously heinous, so brutally violent and unforgiving that OF COURSE these people felt they needed some form of justification if they could EVER pretend or claim that they were righteous in doing these things. That they got to "write the book" about what happened doesn't make it all okay.Do you understand the rules of engagement in matters of conquest? "To the victor go the spoils"......it was the time when this was an expectation, not a violation of any law.
Notice how you dodged the question (for obvious reasons). The bolded, underlined, italicized part above (I didn't want you to miss it, haha...) - we're not, at all, talking about people cleaning up after God sweeps through and kills people (I think it is interesting how you basically admit that it is okay for God to do this, by the way). To make the situation like what we're talking about, then YOU, yourself would be the one going in and doing the killing. You, yourself would be the one stealing from people who were not necessarily dead yet. That's what we're talking about. Like my response to the paragraph above - YOU DON'T GET TO CLAIM RIGHTEOUSNESS WHILE COMMITTING SUCH ACTS. No one does.If God destroys the wicked of this world and then tells me I can help myself to his possessions (as he will never need them again) then yes! I will say thanks very much.I would see that as his gift to me.
It IS murder! What else can you call it? It is pre-meditated killing of other individuals. Do you think that every soldier on BOTH sides walks out onto the battlefield with his rifle thinking: "I'm just going to walk out here and see what happens. If I need to defend myself, then I will."? Are you seriously going to tell me you believe that? For let's remember, there ARE two sides to every war - BOTH claiming the other is "the enemy - and "the winner" gets to decide whose killings were "wrong." What is confusing about this? It is something one should never, ever want to have to engage in if there is almost ANY other alternative. It just so happens that God is not about better alternatives, apparently. Wouldn't you have to agree?Rules of engagement.....do you view it as murder when enemies are killed in a war? If not, why not?
Reasons for acts you would otherwise deem immoral ARE EXCUSES. Plain and simple.Do you know the difference between excuses and reasons? Apparently not.
God does not need excuses as he can do as he pleases. Your translation says "plunder"....so, what is plunder? It is 'goods acquired as a result of war or civil unrest'. If the law said you could plunder the goods of an enemy, it would not be an illegal act.
If God said you can plunder goods from those who plundered from you....isn't that just taking your own stuff back?...maybe with interest?