The Ten Plagues of Egypt- allegorical or historical?

[metis]

So archaeologist and biological scientists interrogate the rocks and other things they find?

In a sense, yes.

Every day of the week law enforcement officers and scientists use "forensics", and there are people in prison today whereas the crime was not witnessed but the evidence clearly showed that Joe Schmoe did it: Fingerprints, d.n.a. evidence, tracing their tracks, etc.

Depending on what's found, where, and what surrounds it, evidence can be presented, and this also includes what biblical archaeologists do as well.

Did I say you?
How do you read? Perhaps you should read it again.

Since there was no reason to assume that it was being aimed at anyone else, why would you mention it if it wasn't a slam against me? It was just you and I, remember-- nobody else? So, why did you bring it up if it wasn't directed at me?

 

[Muffled]

I suppose no one wanted to pass thought door posts covered in blood so it made social distancing easy.

 

[Muffled]

I voted this poll doesn’t reflect my thinking - the plagues were myth.

I believe you concept of myth is deficient. When God says it happened then it did happen.

 

[Muffled]

As a Bible believing Christian I believe the account of the plagues is historical, and that the exodus recorded in the book of (Exodus) is historical, literal, and true.

As to comparison with Corona virus, there was with the plagues in Egypt a miraculous element involved. God raised up Moses and led him to speak to Pharaoh and directed the timing and ceasing of the plagues. There was a direct purpose involved, as you say, the liberation of Israel.

The proof I present is the testimony of the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I believe I wouldn't put it in the same category as history. History isn't as accurate.

 

[nPeace]

In a sense, yes.

Every day of the week law enforcement officers and scientists use "forensics", and there are people in prison today whereas the crime was not witnessed but the evidence clearly showed that Joe Schmoe did it: Fingerprints, d.n.a. evidence, tracing their tracks, etc.

Depending on what's found, where, and what surrounds it, evidence can be presented, and this also includes what biblical archaeologists do as well.

The rocks and objects collected do not speak. They don't say a word. So there is a big difference between eyewitness testimony, and objects.
However, both need corroboration; both need investigation; both need supporting evidence, in order to be accepted reasonably.
There is no difference where science and religion are concerned in this regard.
This is a worldly idea that has no basis. It not factual, nor supported by objective evidence. Yet you believe it. Why?

The Bible says at Psalms 10:4 "the wicked man makes no investigation".
Investigate - carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.
Religion does this. That is a fact.
It is not hearsay. It is not a baseless opinion.
If you are saying otherwise, then you are one of many "Christians" I have met who has an opinion that is surprisingly similar to skeptics, and Atheist.
In fact, former Atheist Lee Stroble would not put that so nicely, I.m sure.

Since there was no reason to assume that it was being aimed at anyone else, why would you mention it if it wasn't a slam against me? It was just you and I, remember-- nobody else? So, why did you bring it up if it wasn't directed at me?

Perhaps read what I said carefully.
This - clearly Satanic - plan to tear down spiritual things (more on that, in the other thread), and promote secular or worldly thinking, is really the crux of the matter, and evidently some professed believers are riding that wagon, whether knowingly, or unknowingly.
However, that would not be surprising, when a person is part of the many waters, on which the harlot sits (Revelation 17:15). If persons love it there, and want to remain there, rather than heed the warning to get out (Revelation 18:4), then understandably their mind will be saturated with worldly thinking.

Notice your response.
Now you are lying as I have no motive to "tear down spiritual things".

You claimed that I am saying that your motive is to "tear down spiritual things", and thus I am a liar.
Where you got that, I don't know.
There is nothing in that quote that anywhere says you, or your. So #1 - What is the lie? There is a Satanic plan, to tear down spiritual things? Some professed believers are riding that wagon, whether knowingly, or unknowingly?
Are these statements false.
#2 - Did I specify anyone as deliberately doing anything?
If you take it personal then I can only say, you know why, and if you feel the cap fits, you know what to do.

I said it because I believe it is the crux of the matter, which is why religion is being viewed by some as this inferior system that has little or no bearing on truth, and rationality. To the contrary.
Does that offend you? Do you think I am wrong to say that? Do you disagree with it, and on what basis, if any?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I believe I wouldn't put it in the same category as history. History isn't as accurate.

I am going by the definition of 'historical' given in the opening post. Historical is used to mean, 'did it really occur'?

Thus I say, yes it is an historical account. It really occurred as recorded in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am going by the definition of 'historical' given in the opening post. Historical is used to mean, 'did it really occur'?

Thus I say, yes it is an historical account. It really occurred as recorded in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Based on what evidence?

 

[Milton Platt]

Good you mention this. Some stories are indeed way above my understanding (creation and God, being the major ones), whereas other stories are not that weird to me, like the stories with the plagues. Those, I can perfectly relate to.

Once I had a plague of flees once in my house ... lasted ca. 40 days, hence to me, when it comes to the 10 plagues, that to me is very easy to accept (I mean to accept these Bible stories), I could not accept having thousands of flees in my house (now smiling, not when the plague was going on). And no poison could kill them. After ca. 6 weeks I was desperate and went on my knees and I prayed to God, to please withdraw this plague (and I made a big sacrifice; in India that's quite common). And it worked, next day "God" withdrew this plague. Big relieve, after ca. 6 weeks

So, I do understand the significance of these 10 plagues. Usually it takes a lot of problems, before humans (at least I), go on their knees, and realize they need help. In that context, I also view those plagues from the Bible. So, I see lots of allegory, but if I got the flees, I won't be surprised they got their fair share of "animals and bugs" too.

And how "God" fits in it exactly, I don't know. Like creation, God is also beyond my understanding. But, I do know, as a fact, that praying works. Even animals (at least for flees I know for sure now) have to submit then. I do use the word "God", even though I can't comprehend the Greatness of God. Most important for me is, to experience that it (prayer) works. That's all I need to know right now. Not important to understand it all for me, or be able to prove it all (if this is even possible).

There seems to be no extra-biblical accounts of any of them, or of the Jews even being in Egypt en mass. And this from a society which had meticulous records of many things.

 

[stvdv]

There seems to be no extra-biblical accounts of any of them, or of the Jews even being in Egypt en mass. And this from a society which had meticulous records of many things.

We have corona, so I would be surprised if they had nothing
Grass hoppers ate everything, maybe they ate the previous written records also
(okay, that was a joke)

For me, facts in Scriptures are not important. I believe most is not literally meant. Some might have happened or not, but for me it's more important what important lesson I can learn from it. And anyway, what might have been an important fact 2000 years ago, might not be important today at all. So, for me it's more important to use my common sense, and see what I need right now.

 

[Milton Platt]

We have corona, so I would be surprised if they had nothing
Grass hoppers ate everything, maybe they ate the previous written records also
(okay, that was a joke)

For me, facts in Scriptures are not important. I believe most is not literally meant. Some might have happened or not, but for me it's more important what important lesson I can learn from it. And anyway, what might have been an important fact 2000 years ago, might not be important today at all. So, for me it's more important to use my common sense, and see what I need right now.

Sure. By the way, in central Mexico, they are having revenge on the grasshoppers. They are a common condiment found on the table around Oaxaca.

 

[Deeje]

It had me thinking about the ten plagues of Egypt. Most of us are familiar with the story but for those who aren’t it forms part of the story of the book of Exodus when Ten disasters are inflicted on Egypt by Yahweh the God of Israel, in order to force the Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart from slavery; they serve as "signs and marvels" given by God to answer Pharaoh's taunt that he does not know Yahweh: "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD."

To suggest that the 10 plagues are just allegory is to suggest that the nation of Israel were just allegory as well.

The 10 plagues were the catalyst for Israel’s release from slavery in Egypt. But what you leave out is the story of how the Israelites got to be slaves in Egypt in the first place. This goes back to Joseph and his brothers selling their favoured younger brother to passing slave traders who took him to Egypt. It ignores all of Joseph’s life course from that time onward resulting in the families of Israel (Jacob) coming to Egypt to survive a 7 year drought and resulting famine. Joseph then realized that he was sent ahead of his family to preserve them (the progenitors of the promised Messiah) alive through that difficult period.
Was all of that allegory too?

The 10 plagues were an episode in a very long and involved history of God’s people......each plague was designed to humiliate one of Egypt’s principle gods as @whirlingmerc has mentioned.....including Pharaoh himself who was considered a deity and his firstborn son would have been his successor. The hard heart of Pharaoh was dealt a crushing blow, but he had no one to blame but himself.

The blood of the Passover lamb was to be placed on the doorposts of Israelite dwellings in order for their own firstborn to be spared when “the angel of death” was sent by God to perform this last plague. Failure to comply with God’s directive would have resulted in grief for them too. This demonstrates the value of obedience to God's commands, even if they seem strange at the time.

God did not require his people to commemorate fictitious events.
The Passover was a foregleam of the role of the Messiah as “the Lamb of God” who was sacrificed for mankind. His blood would save his disciples who obediently followed his teachings and directions as God’s last prophet.

The Bible is not just stories in a book...it is one story from Genesis to Revelation. It is a factual and historical account of the history of God’s response to what happened in Eden. How he foretold the coming of his Messiah and the credentials he would need to fulfill the criteria. Part of his credentials was that he would come from Abraham’s lineage and offer his life in exchange for ours. The history of the Israelites is an integral part of this narrative.

IMO, we cannot discount anything the Bible says, or suggest that what God says happened, didn’t really happen because there is ‘no evidence’. Egypt was a proud nation whose defeats and failures were never recorded. So we can’t say that there is no evidence under those circumstances. They just erased it from their history. The Bible is evidence enough for God’s worshippers.....or it should be. That is what faith is all about. (Hebrews 11:1)

That is how I see these things.....

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Based on what evidence?

I already answered that. Why do you ask....because you can't read?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Wandering Monk]

I already answered that. Why do you ask....because you can't read?Good-Ole-Rebel

I can read fine. Which of these posts you put on this thread do you consider evidence? All I see are assertions that the Biblical accounts of the plagues are true.

As a Bible believing Christian I believe the account of the plagues is historical, and that the exodus recorded in the book of (Exodus) is historical, literal, and true.

As to comparison with Corona virus, there was with the plagues in Egypt a miraculous element involved. God raised up Moses and led him to speak to Pharaoh and directed the timing and ceasing of the plagues. There was a direct purpose involved, as you say, the liberation of Israel.

The proof I present is the testimony of the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Your welcome. Perhaps I am a minority in being a Christian.

It is written as historically and literally true. Beginning with (Genesis) it is written in a declaration form. God is. God spoke. God created. And it was so.

There is no claim in the Bible that says it is not written as historical and literal and should be taken as just nice stories. It reads as events and persons that really occur and exist. Of course some don't believe these events or persons were literal. But that is no fault of the Bible. The Bible presents them as historical and literal.

If the historical record found in the Bible is not true, then Jesus was mistaken or a liar. Which would make Him a poor substitute for sin. (John 3:14) "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:" (John 7:19) "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" This is just two of many many verses.

But for that matter, if the story of the Exodus is not really true, why should one believe the account concerning Jesus? I mean, it makes a good story. But no need for anyone to believe it really happened. Correct?

You don't have to believe any of it. But it doesn't give any the authority to believe only parts of it and reject the others. Which in reality is rejecting all of it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

But that is not what the Bible says.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I do accept the Bible as literal history and true. I thought I made that very plain.

I don't care how few there are that agree with me.

Yes, I have heard that expression.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well, just what are you addressing? Israel's physical ancestory or their religious ancestory? I was under the impression you were emphasizing their religious ancestory. See your post #(67).

Israel physically is not Canaanite. Concerning their physical ancestory Abraham was Syrian and from Ur of the Chaldees. (Deut. 26:5) (Gen. 11:31)

Religious wise, Israel is not Canaanite either. Their 'forbears' were not Canannite. Their forbears were the people of God of the lineage of Adam, then Seth, all the way through Noah. That is where Israel's ancestory of religion comes from. (Gen. 4:26) (Gen. 5:1-32) (Gen. 7) (Gen. 9:1) (Gen. 11:10-30)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well, the Bible says they did exist. You say they didn't. Guess Who I believe....it ain't you.

I cannot express the disappointment I had years ago when I was in a volatile debate about the Bible and especially the Old Testament. I wanted to be able to prove my point and so called a Synagogue to use as a reference. And they pretty much said what you are saying. They didn't believe their own Old Testament. Now, in our day, you have 'Christians' or people who call themselves 'Christians', just like them. They do not believe either that the Bible is the written Word of God. Oh it's good stories that men wrote..yada, yada, yada, b.s. Disappointing to me.

If you advise me to read an article found on 'Wikipedia', you are correct, I will not bother.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[nPeace]

I can read fine. Which of these posts you put on this thread do you consider evidence? All I see are assertions that the Biblical accounts of the plagues are true.

Sorry @Good-Ole-Rebel. I just can't resist. Forgive me.
What evidence is there that the Assyrians conquering Egypt, or Babylons conquered the Assyrians, or of Darius conquering Babylon, or... ?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Sorry @Good-Ole-Rebel. I just can't resist. Forgive me.
What evidence is there that the Assyrians conquering Egypt, or Babylons conquered the Assyrians, or of Darius conquering Babylon, or... ?

Those are pretty mundane events.

The plagues are supposed to be miraculous.

If you are unsatisfied with the evidence for the former, I would think you would be even more unsatisfied with the evidence for the latter.

 

[nPeace]

Those are pretty mundane events.

The plagues are supposed to be miraculous.

If you are unsatisfied with the evidence for the former, I would think you would be even more unsatisfied with the evidence for the latter.

I thought you really wanted the answer to your question. Do you, or don't you?

 

[nPeace]

@Wandering Monk okay, so @Good-Ole-Rebel did give the answer, and he did explain, on what evidence.
However, you evidently don't want to see it, based on your response here, and lack of.
By the way, I hope you did not conclude that I was unsatisfied with the evidence that the Assyrians conquering Egypt, or Babylons conquered the Assyrians, or of Darius conquering Babylon, because I accept all of them as historical events. Based on what evidence? The same for accepting the ten plagues as historical events.

However, you seem reluctant to say if you believe the former, or not, and based on what evidence. I wonder why.

 

[Wandering Monk]

@Wandering Monk okay, so @Good-Ole-Rebel did give the answer, and he did explain, on what evidence.
However, you evidently don't want to see it, based on your response here, and lack of.
By the way, I hope you did not conclude that I was unsatisfied with the evidence that the Assyrians conquering Egypt, or Babylons conquered the Assyrians, or of Darius conquering Babylon, because I accept all of them as historical events. Based on what evidence? The same for accepting the ten plagues as historical events.

However, you seem reluctant to say if you believe the former, or not, and based on what evidence. I wonder why.

I voted that they may be partially historical based on the Ipuwer Papyrus. There is not 100% correlation with the Bible.

That is a long way from saying that these are these events confirm the Biblical account.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I voted that they may be partially historical based on the Ipuwer Papyrus. There is not 100% correlation with the Bible.

That is a long way from saying that these are these events confirm the Biblical account.

From Wikipedia ...

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, around 1250 BCE but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty. [c.1991–1803 BCE]​

As such it would predate the Exodus by many centuries.

 

[nPeace]

I voted that they may be partially historical based on the Ipuwer Papyrus. There is not 100% correlation with the Bible.

That is a long way from saying that these are these events confirm the Biblical account.

"They", meaning what exactly - all three events (the former), or are you referring to the latter (the plagues)?
What makes you think that has anything to do with evidence for the historicity of the ten plagues?
Are you sure you are listening? I know you are reading, but are you listening to what you "read"?
The Ipuwer Papyrus has nothing to do with anything Good-Ole-Rebel said... nor I.

It certainly doesn't tell me if you accept the history of the three conquests I mentioned?
Let's face it, the reason you don't want to accept the ten plagues as historical events is because they contain the element of miracles, or supernatural events, is that not true?
However, whether events are historical or authentic, s not determined by how one feels - emotional, or volitional tendencies, are they.