|
Berserk
|
Craig, you just raised agenda question #6 about the death of the firstborn sons in Egypt during the 10 plagues. I think it best to respond by offering my views on many of the events associated with the Israelite exodus from Egyptian slavery (c. 1260 BC). On one level, all these events can be explained naturally. But on another level, the combination of all these coincidences at the same time can be interpreted as a sign of divine providence. Also, it must be remembered that the Old Testament often fails to distinguish between the active and the permissive will of God.
I like Dr. John Marr's interpretation of the plagues. The first plague, "the river of blood," is a perfect description of the toxic algae bloom "Physteria," which dissolves the still living fish and makes the water toxic and red. The absence of fish allowed the 2nd plague (frogs) because there were not enough fish to keep down the number of tadpoles. The 3rd plague was the midge "coolacoidees," which spreads the blue tongue for cattle and African horse sickness, two diseases which nicely fit the 5th plague. The 6th plague (boils) was caused by a bacterial infection (Glanders) which is carried by stable fies, which were the 4th plague. Plague #7 was a massive hailstorm and Plague #9 (darkness) was a massive standstorm. Plague #8 (locusts) infected the grain with locust droppings, producing Plague #10, the death of the firstborn sons. This plague was caused by the storage of the wet grain harvest. The grain storage pits were then covered with sand. This made them hot and humid--ideal conditions for growing the lethal "Stachybotrys atra" bacteria. Why did this outbreak only kill the firstborn sons? First, it only affected the top part of the grain store, and the firstborn Egyptian sons got the first servings. Second, the Egyptian firstborn were given an extra helping of the best food. By contrast, the Israelites lived in a different area (Goshen) that might have escaped this infection. In any case, they were employing different methods for food preparation that didn't concentrate the infected grain into lethal doses.
The biblical Hebrew “yam suph,” has often been mistranslated “Red Sea,” but it really means “Reed Sea.” This is important for two reasons: (1) There are no reeds along the Red Sea, but reeds abound along the lakes (Menzaleh and Timsah) near the Hebrew captivity. (2) About once a century, a dry path has been known to emerge through these lakes through a combination of unusually strong wind and tide conditions. The miracle, then, is the perfect timing of this very rare natural event with the Israelite flight from slavery.
One might object that there is no mention of the Hebrew exodus in the contemporary Egyptian daybooks and journals. This objection may be summarily dismissed on 4 grounds: (1) Over 99% of the relevant Egyptian sources are missing for the exodus period. (2) In any case, the Egyptians only recorded triumphant news that served their propangandistic purposes. For example, they put a deceptively positive spin on their military reversals or standoffs. (3) Besides, in precisely the period when the Israelites enter Canaan, the first ever Egyptian allusion to “Israel” appears in the Pharaoh Merneptah’s stele. (4) The Reed Sea Crossing occurred in the 13th century and is already celebrated as early as the 12th century Song of the Sea in Exodus 15. Tbis implies a reasonable family connection with eyewitnesses of an earlier generation.
The historicity of the exodus can be defended on other grounds as well. Many of the Hebrews in the Exodus story had Egyptian names (e.g. Moses, Aaron, Hophni, Phinehas, Merari). The Hebrew slaves were forced to build the capital at “Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). But after the 11th century this identification is dropped in favor of “Tanis.” The method of Israelite brick-making in Egypt is archeologically confirmed as ancient Egyptian building practice, but it is unknown in ancient Palestine. So if the Exodus story were a later invention, one would expect the capital to be called Tanis and the building methods to be Palestinian, not Egyptian.
One should not be surprised that the escaping Hebrews retained several possessions. Egyptian slavery might better be labelled forced labor. The “slaves” were permitted to retain their possessions and valuables.
The Israelites benefit from water gushing from a rock. Even in our day, archaeologists have discovered considerable amounts of water trapped in some desert rocks in the Sinai. The Israelites twice feast on the evening migration of quail from what is now Turkey, once each at the Gulfs of Suez (Exodus 16:13) and of Aqaba (Numbers 11:31), These are precisely the areas and time of day still overflown by quail in Spring, the season applicable to these two biblical references. The Israelites reportedly also feast on “manna”, which is formed by the secretions of various insects that feed off desert tamerisk bushes. In Hebrew "manna" means "What is it (Exodus 16:15)?" The Israelites understandably viewed this tasty delicacy as a divine provision in the desert. But one wonders whether they would have gladly devoured manna, had they known they are eating insect excrement! In any case, "manna" remains an Arab delicacy to this day.
Don
|
Home
Pages: 
