• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Contradictions Challenge

siti

Well-Known Member
...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.

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.
 

Earthling

David Henson
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.

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.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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?

The Hebrew text doesn’t say “cattle” it says “livestock”. (I always think of cattle as cows and bulls.)

You should read the whole chapter, for context. Vs.3 says “in the field”.
Some of those Egyptians began to see Jehovah as more powerful than their Gods, so they may have listened and brought their livestock indoors, and it didn’t affect them.

And there are a couple other explanations , like rabbi Aben Ezra’s interpretation, “all sorts of / manner of livestock.”

What agrees with this, is that goats are not even mentioned, yet I’m sure they were there; they were considered important back in those agrarian days.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
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.
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)
 

siti

Well-Known Member
The Hebrew text doesn’t say “cattle” it says “livestock”.
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?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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?
Those that weren’t “in the field”, as I explained.
 

Earthling

David Henson
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)

What you could do is compare the KJV that uses cattle, to newer translations which use livestock. In King James' day the word cattle meant any livestock, property, land. Sheep, turkeys, camel, cows, bulls, horses, etc. See Link

Perhaps that's where the confusion is?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Those that weren’t “in the field”, as I explained.
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!
 

Earthling

David Henson
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!

Very funny! Not in the house, in the stable, barn, etc. That sort of thing.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Apparently the confusion is more to do with when the King James Bible was compiled.

Well, its about the worse one there is, but unfortunately there are no copyright limits on it, which is why it's so often used online. Plus, it's been around for a long time and it's a favorite.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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!
Lol.

Keep in mind, there are buildings called....barns?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Never have a rebuttal do you? How many years were you a Christian?
Your point was rebutted. You as much as admitted to that.

You on the other hand have not rebutted one contradiction. You have only made excuses, which is not the same thing at all.

Which led up to the question that you dodged:

Why defend such a flawed work?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Earthling

David Henson
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.

I don't see that happening, I've never seen anyone do that. I've been accused of doing that. I think that it may be a case of the skeptic or a believer clinging to an interpretation that they believe as inaccurate being changed into something that, in their opinion, is still inaccurate but only holding to that opinion because they can't or don't want to let go of their conviction that it is still inaccurate.

If you could give me an example where someone here, me or anyone else doing what you say that might help me address it.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
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.
"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.

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.
happy0105.gif
I would see that as his gift to me.
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.

Rules of engagement.....do you view it as murder when enemies are killed in a war? If not, why not?
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?
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
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? :shrug:
Reasons for acts you would otherwise deem immoral ARE EXCUSES. Plain and simple.
 
Top