Bible Topic Thread (merged)

#2,252
#2,252
Any who, any buy that the jews were not slaves in Egypt, but were in fact a military arm that guarded the trade route through Goshen?
 
#2,253
#2,253
Any who, any buy that the jews were not slaves in Egypt, but were in fact a military arm that guarded the trade route through Goshen?
 
#2,257
#2,257
In short, from a military standpoint it is argued that a lot of our traditions or thoughts about the Bible are wrong. First, Abraham was part of a sect which in short were mercenaries. The author suggests, how would Abraham been able to attack and free lot.

Abraham's seed, which would have went into Egpyt would have carried the tradition of the warrior sect. Egpyt let Israel settle in Goshen which was one of their primary trade routes, in return they guarded and were the first line of defense.

A new Pharaoh came to power and in short game them civil duties as builders and not as slaves. The author argues that the Bible never mentions slavery and always references the Israelites as warriors. Case in point when Moses finally leaves them out they raid several Egpytian settlements for supplies before their journey out into the Desert. The author argues that is why Pharaoh decided to pursue them.

The author argues that Moses was in fact a great military leader and understood terrain from his time spent in Goshen. That is why he led the people to the Sea of Reeds and knew when the tide was right they would cross and if the Egyptians did follow the mud would not be able to support their chariots.

Also, the author explains the pillar of fire. Both were military signals used by the Egyptian military and Moses would have known this. Moses intentionally used their system to bait the Egyptian army into following him.

Then the author argues that instead of going north into Canaan he went south to confuse the Egyptian Army. After Sinai they went north to prepare to take back Canaan for 40 years building up their army.

I loved the notion of Moses as a military leader and strategist. Of building and training an army in the desert for 40 years while at the same time allowing the sinning people of Israel to die out.

The author uses the Exodus text and when it comes down to it........ I think he may have a point.
 
#2,258
#2,258
OrangeEmpire said:
Any who, any buy that the jews were not slaves in Egypt, but were in fact a military arm that guarded the trade route through Goshen?
Click to expand...

Never heard of that before, what is the source of that supposition.

Have you ever heard of the 13th tribe?? (The Khazars)
 
#2,259
#2,259
OrangeEmpire said:
Any who, any buy that the jews were not slaves in Egypt, but were in fact a military arm that guarded the trade route through Goshen?
Click to expand...

OrangeEmpire said:
In short, from a military standpoint it is argued that a lot of our traditions or thoughts about the Bible are wrong. First, Abraham was part of a sect which in short were mercenaries. The author suggests, how would Abraham been able to attack and free lot.

Abraham's seed, which would have went into Egpyt would have carried the tradition of the warrior sect. Egpyt let Israel settle in Goshen which was one of their primary trade routes, in return they guarded and were the first line of defense.

A new Pharaoh came to power and in short game them civil duties as builders and not as slaves. The author argues that the Bible never mentions slavery and always references the Israelites as warriors. Case in point when Moses finally leaves them out they raid several Egpytian settlements for supplies before their journey out into the Desert. The author argues that is why Pharaoh decided to pursue them.

The author argues that Moses was in fact a great military leader and understood terrain from his time spent in Goshen. That is why he led the people to the Sea of Reeds and knew when the tide was right they would cross and if the Egyptians did follow the mud would not be able to support their chariots.

Also, the author explains the pillar of fire. Both were military signals used by the Egyptian military and Moses would have known this. Moses intentionally used their system to bait the Egyptian army into following him.

Then the author argues that instead of going north into Canaan he went south to confuse the Egyptian Army. After Sinai they went north to prepare to take back Canaan for 40 years building up their army.

I loved the notion of Moses as a military leader and strategist. Of building and training an army in the desert for 40 years while at the same time allowing the sinning people of Israel to die out.

The author uses the Exodus text and when it comes down to it........ I think he may have a point.
Click to expand...

Does the author have anything to say about Melchisedec?? (mentioned in the Bible after the battle to free Lot)
 
#2,260
#2,260
Vol Mania 21 said:
what the crap happened here
Click to expand...

At last, God can rest easy. He is no longer the target of a lawsuit in Nebraska where state senator Ernie Chambers filed his case in September of last year.

Chambers, a Democrat and self-identified agnostic, was suing God for a permanent injunction preventing the Almighty from wreaking havoc and causing harm through such “acts of God” as tornados and earthquakes.

The court’s Judge Marlon Polk tossed out the case, with prejudice, however, declaring the suit could not go forward because Chambers could produce no proof that he had served the Deity with papers informing of the lawsuit.

Chambers took issue with the ruling, saying, “The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God’s omniscience.” Therefore, Chambers said, “Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit.”

We won’t argue with that, though Judge Polk was not persuaded. Perhaps he took the command “judge not” a little too literally.
 
#2,261
#2,261
OrangeEmpire said:
In short, from a military standpoint it is argued that a lot of our traditions or thoughts about the Bible are wrong. First, Abraham was part of a sect which in short were mercenaries. The author suggests, how would Abraham been able to attack and free lot.

Abraham's seed, which would have went into Egpyt would have carried the tradition of the warrior sect. Egpyt let Israel settle in Goshen which was one of their primary trade routes, in return they guarded and were the first line of defense.

A new Pharaoh came to power and in short game them civil duties as builders and not as slaves. The author argues that the Bible never mentions slavery and always references the Israelites as warriors. Case in point when Moses finally leaves them out they raid several Egpytian settlements for supplies before their journey out into the Desert. The author argues that is why Pharaoh decided to pursue them.

The author argues that Moses was in fact a great military leader and understood terrain from his time spent in Goshen. That is why he led the people to the Sea of Reeds and knew when the tide was right they would cross and if the Egyptians did follow the mud would not be able to support their chariots.

Also, the author explains the pillar of fire. Both were military signals used by the Egyptian military and Moses would have known this. Moses intentionally used their system to bait the Egyptian army into following him.

Then the author argues that instead of going north into Canaan he went south to confuse the Egyptian Army. After Sinai they went north to prepare to take back Canaan for 40 years building up their army.

I loved the notion of Moses as a military leader and strategist. Of building and training an army in the desert for 40 years while at the same time allowing the sinning people of Israel to die out.

The author uses the Exodus text and when it comes down to it........ I think he may have a point.
Click to expand...

Where can I find more info on this. I am an ancient civilization buff and would like to look into it. I was aware of the "Sea of Reeds" theory about Exodus, it seems the most plausible.
 
#2,265
#2,265
gsvol said:
You mean 'accept' carbon dating?

Well yeah, I would accept a date with a carbon, if she were pretty good looking.

There have been problems with the theory of carbon dating in the past as in the case of the bristlecone pine which can be traced back 4,500 years by it's annual rings. After study of that data the carbon dating method was revised because a preponderance of evidence proved the original method was flawed.

If carbon dating can be proven to be in error over that short of a period, then anything beyond 4,500 years is theoretical, don't you agree?

Do the laws of physics change, or are they constant for an infinite amount of time?

We are pretty sure that life on Earth has gone through tremendous, sudden changes a various points in history.

Any bit of matter, however large or small, can be changed into another form of matter under certain circumstances. So does the age of the matter really matter????

The bottom line is that the universe has no beginning and has no end, it is, it always has been, and it always will be. So picking out some small sample of that and proving how long it has been in the state in which it now exists proves nothing other than the fact that it is presently in some state and theoretically it has been in that state for X number of years, that doesn't prove it has been combined with many other samples for the same X number of years, does it?
Click to expand...

Carbon dating is only used on organic material, generally is only used to date back 50,000 years. Other than that, one would use other isotopes of various elements to figure out the age of things. As far as "that doesn't prove it has been combined with many other samples for the same X number of years," when you are talking about carbon from multiple particles at a level, like in a soil or sediment level you have an issue. But that is why that is rarely done (and only when there is nothing else to date). Usually you would date a solid piece of organic material such as a chunk of charcoal, or in the case of rocks... A single sample of rock. These are not "mixes" of samples because they are being taken as a solid object and dated.
 
#2,266
#2,266
IPorange said:
Carbon dating is only used on organic material, generally is only used to date back 50,000 years. Other than that, one would use other isotopes of various elements to figure out the age of things. As far as "that doesn't prove it has been combined with many other samples for the same X number of years," when you are talking about carbon from multiple particles at a level, like in a soil or sediment level you have an issue. But that is why that is rarely done (and only when there is nothing else to date). Usually you would date a solid piece of organic material such as a chunk of charcoal, or in the case of rocks... A single sample of rock. These are not "mixes" of samples because they are being taken as a solid object and dated.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Where do you position yourself in the catastrophism versus uniformitarianism debate?
 
#2,268
#2,268
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter" - Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist"
 
#2,271
#2,271
OrangeEmpire said:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter" - Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist"
Click to expand...

Barker is only delineating the difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'

What Barker overlooks is that these so-called 'atheists' have a believe system and a major plank in that system is that Christianity is a source of evil (according to their way of thinking and is a roadblock in their advance toward their idea of utopia) and should be opposed and eliminated or at least marginalized.

From outward appearances they would seem to be doing rather well. "Nothing is as it seems to be." said one wise person though.



SafeRedirect.aspx


Headed For Home said:
OE your choice of avatars is disturbing :shakehead:
Click to expand...

He hasn't been around much lately, probably hanging out on alternative forums.















gridscape911.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top