what i dnt get is why if all animals are supposed to be equal in the eyes of god, then why would god have the livestock diseased and killed to punish a group of humans. also why did moses tell the jews to put BLOOD from lambs they had killed on the doors to protect them. to punish humans god allowed alot of animals to die and be sacrificed.
@krypticavalanch Where in the BIble does it say that all animals are supposed to be equal in the eyes of God? If that were the case the eating of meat would be forbidden in Christian religions.
@mattymacg09 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.
that is a very interesting point you make, the coincidence of all these things happening in, what i am assuming, a relatively short amount of time cannot be overlooked.
@mattymacg09 The only jews that were killed were those that didn't follow the command that moses gave (such as staying inside). All the egyptians that were bad to the jews were all affected by the plague.
First of all to say that "Christians argue that...(fill in whatever you want)..", is a pretty sweeping generalization. The belief that "spirituality disproves science" is not required to be a christian, and in fact not believed by many, many christians. Even if that statement was true, why would you argue within the original fallacy instead of pointing it out in the first place?
Well, this is highly stretched and distorted to fit the main plot of the movie, but some of what she's saying is correct. There was a plague that struck northern Africa between 1347 and 1349 (AD not BC), there is evidence of mycotoxins affecting crops throughout that time, and Blue Tongue virus was noted (only 3 things, not 10). Either way, this rant was constructed to fit the movie and seem logical, and should not be taken seriously. Though it does provide a good example of a chain of events.
Obviously the 10 plagues occurred by nature and scientific fashion, I believe God's arsenal are Earth's elements. People always assume that books such as the bible, never mentioned science, but If you study the bible, it will make you question your ideology, there is so much logical explanations to what seems supernatural, but what really MAKES me wonder is why does the universe work the way it works, not HOW?
@ Mons - She isn't saying that these things are ACTUALLY what happened. She simply stated what would be scientific explainations for the plagues. And why is it stupid? If that is what her characters' beliefs are why is it any different from believing in God or aliens or some other thing? That is their choice to believe it. Who are you to say it's stupid?
I'm an atheist, but I still have to say this is completely stupid. There is no way in hell that we could be able to tell that this precise chain of events occurred based on evidence available to us.
Making up a story to disprove made up Bliblical stories makes you just as bad as those who believe in the Bible without good evidence.
Obviously the Bible is not a historical document. You don't need to make up shit to feel better about your own beliefs.
Jilipoth!?!?! I'm asking the same question! If I said a month in advance I'm going to rob a bank and leave a picture of elvis at the scene, and a month later a bank is robbed and a photo of elvis is on the floor, these SAME group of scientist would then go and prove I didn't do it because the bank was robbed and elvis photo was there. Scientist are too smart for their own good.
Interesting - It would run the same argument as to say "Oranges aren't actually orange because they are round." If we hold logical thought with any sense of regard, IS THIS NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?
No, that's not what that statement means. The book of Numbers shows that no Israelite under the age of 20 went into the promised land. The wilderness experience lasted until everyone over 20 died. No 20 year old Israelite ex-Egptian slave would believe they would inherit a land historically filled with empire's military turmoil unless it was true. It would be ludacris to believe such a story with Egypt, Aassryia, Babylonia, Persia, ect, etc, etc breathing down your nations throat.
If you are defending atheISM, I would like to know where we came from, why were are here, why is there morality, and what happens when we die? Atheists claim the answer to question one is evolution, which doesn't even have sceintific validity yet. They say we are here to survive and reproduce, but some take their lives and choose not to. They say there isn't good and evil, only suffering and not suffering. Finally, they say nothing happens when we die. Do you believe these widely held beliefs?
I never said the age of a religion makes is more true than another.
People are "converts" to atheism just as much as some are "converts" to other religions. Does that mean you think Richard Dawkins, the famous Atheist, was weak-willed, stupid, and traumatic since he rejected faith because of his upbringing? What about Madalyn Murrah O'Hare? Both "converted" to atheism because of traumatic times.
The age of the religion doesn't matter, it doesn't make it true. We know the phoenecians were worshipping bulls long before the Israelite people. So you think those "converts" are stupid? They would be stupid if it wasn't true and the events didn't happen. But, they did. The Israelites were led by God out of Egypt and there is significant evidence for it.
I'm understanding your worldview to be science, don't you see the flaws? Or, has your world raised you were you can't see its flaws?
You really think people would have followed the religion for nearly 3500 years if this was a contradiction? If anyone in any culture heard someone proclaim they were quoting God himself, and those quotes were directly contradictory, you think they would really follow him? You can't force our worldview onto theirs which is close to 3500 years old.
One thing that I think it difficult to understand are these "omni's." God is given these characteristics by the church/religion which the scriptures do not verify. God is not necessarily omniscient in scripture, and even if he is indeed omnipotent, he limits his own omnipotence in the early part of Genesis. The contradictions you see are not generated by scripture or God, they are generated by the church.
In order for something to be 'contradictory' it must make absolutely opposite claims. Like mentioned earlier, pantheists can claim God is BOTH personal AND non-personal.
My scriptures do not absolutely claim opposite attributes. However, the do infer qualified attributes. This is why I said in my 5th post the Bible has "tensions" but they are not contradictions.
Well, first off Hinduism follow dialectical systems of logic. They can basically assert that any quality of their gods are both/and. God is BOTH person AND non-personal and we're supposed to not worry about the contradictions. So it become a vacuum which suctions in everything. Christianity follows either/or non-contradictory logic. So, EITHER you believe in christ and go to heaven OR you don't. But, a pantheist usually says you must follow EITHER the dialectical system of logic OR nothing
else. You cannot use the either/or system of logic to prove the both/and. Therefore, if they follow their logic honestly, it shouldn't matter what religion anyone is. Islam says God is all-powerful, yet cannot be begotten. So he isn't all-powerful. They also says the revelation Qur'an can override revelation Old Testament because it's been lost; so who is to say revelation X can't come in and claim perfection? There are many things to address which would take days. But, those systems are
internally contradictory. Islam also claims that the prophet Mohammed was a prophet to the world. They also say the Qur'an is understood in its fullest capacity in pure Arabic. So, since the world doesn't speak Arabic, Mohammed was not a prophet to the world.
There are many microbiologists who will confirm that those "systems" do not have the possibility of existing purely by random chance. As for many of them, a designer is part of the equation.
You cannot make the statement, "God does not exist" and prove it with natural science because the very statement is neither scientific nor mathematical. Because science itself has set its parameters, it can never disprove the existance of God. There is a philosophical pre-commitment that is made.
I'm a little confused as to what you mean. Both science and the Bible seek to explain what is true. Science is limited to natural explanation only which makes it non-absolute and not empirical. The Bible is not. It can explain natural and supernatural truth. However, the Bible is a book about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is not a science book or a math book. It never claimed scientific or mathematical truth. It claims theological truth. It must always be read theology first.
oh how crazy natural events happen throughout the history of our earth, there has to be an explanation for these unusual chain of events well what about the tsunami in indonesia 2004and the eartquakes aall around the wolrd and the increase heat waves, earthquakes , etc. As our technology and improvement in scientific research has increased so has our understanding of our world we live, if you dont remember science DISPROVED that the earth was the center of theuniverse,not quite what we think now
I would disagree. There are certainly "tensions" in the Bible. But the same is true in science. There are many, many tensions in science, but that doesn't make science not true. The same with God. Jst because there are tensions in the Bible doesn't make God not true.
I agree that none can prove or disprove the existance of any gods based on their system of interpretation. I choose Christianity because it's what best describes reality and because only God is big enough to answer the quesitons of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. I do not choose others faiths because their religious systems are either internally or externally contradictory.
How are the 10 plagues "debunked?" Doesn't this prove them, not debunk them? Indeed, there is scientific plausibility that the Santorini Volcano of Greece set these plagues in motion, but the volcano's eruption is dated at 1600B.C. Scholars debate the dating of Exodus at 1440B.C. or 1290 B.C. Far from this eruption. There is still much work to be done to suggest this.
oh just so you know if you actually thought about it during these "plagues" would have been the perfect time to escape for the slaves.Egypt was in chaos,people dying,famine,just so many things that would have made escape easier than ever.The egyptians most likely chased after them because they didnt want to lose their sense of authority,which would explain the artifacts.Once again i used logic to explain these things,not blind faith.Good try though ;)
hehe i explained this to my mom and she said"shut the fuck up youre wrong"the funny thing is that my stepdad is an atheist,im an atheist,and my sisters an atheist.I really hope that us athesists can find proof that were right.(by the way im not trying to disrespect any christians or other religions)
what i want to know is how you came to this conclusion. We will never know exactly how these plagues happened. This is one theory in a fiction movie. And this does not "debunk" anything, if anything this video would actually prove that all of these plagues could happen at one time given the right conditions. I am sorry that a Christian said that to you after presenting evidence because that is not the way to go about a debate.
thats sad that a terrible movie by any standards has changed your worldview so quickly. if i showed you a clip from a movie explaining the crossing of the red sea, would you convert to Christianity or would you have your own opinion?
UTuberSandwich LOL @ WHY IT HAPPENED... You say God did it for humiliation... but wait i thought GOD LOVED EVERYONE? ... you see how you don't know what your talking about (i don't claim to know either) just saying i'm looking for some consistency. = p
The only thing the actor is doing is explaining what happened and how it happened, she never explained WHY IT HAPPENED. 430 had passed and it was time for Israel to be free of slavery to Egypt. God used all science at his disposal to make that happen.
40 years after the Exodus from Egypt , Rahab the prostitute told Caleb and Joshua that her nation still feared the Jews. the whole point of the 10 plagues was for God to humiliate 10 of Eygpts most potent Gods. The killing of the Egyptian first born was so ON Point that the Egyptians let the Israelites leave Egypt giving them gifts of silver and gold before changing his mind. The killing of the first born was the ULTIMATE humiliation of the Egyptian Sun God of Life -RA.
Nice scientific explanation, which means Moses was right he was very accurate in predicting those plagues to happen. This make Moses the greatest scientist of all humankind.
What I think is amazing and quite odd...is that NO WHERE in Egyptian History does it tell of a Prince who takes the slaves into the desert. Egyptians kept their History, we know that. An event like that, someone would write about... Not to mention that they were in the desert of 40yrs. NO archaeological Dig have EVER found ANY trace of these people. 100,000 people living in the desert for 40 yrs, and no one ever dies, or drops a bowl, or loses a sandal...Jews are pretty fucking tidy...
Again, to seek historical verification of the biblical stories is in my estimation to miss the point of the stories themselves. The Bible is developing a covenantal history. And the biblical story is probably using hyperbole when it describes the exprience of the desert. By the way, it's listed at 600,000 (Exo 12:37) and this generation is understood as dying in the desert/wilderness. So, people did die. There is a question, however, of exactly what route they used.
Whats really amazing is that the Egyptians did write about a number of slaves ESCAPING captivity. Yes they where in the desert for 40 years out of punishment. And they have uncovered chariot wheels, two poles written in Hebrew on opposite sides of the red sea proclaiming God's grace, and a gold plated chariot that was only ridden by a pharaoh all between the same stretch of sea. And the Hebrews did not have a system for writing numbers, so we do not know how many their were, good try though.
she is saying that the first born usually ate the biggest portion with caused them to eat the most toxin and they died..well if the first born was an infant, this explanation would not apply because obviously the infant is not having the biggest portion.
she didnt say the first born were infants...they were the first born...as in the children born before any other children...as the oldest child they recieved the larger portion of food amongst the children....why do you assume because they were born first that at that time theyb would still be infants....first born not newly born
it was 1400 B.C the egyptians saw that most of the first borns were dying and wasnt looking into the death of their dying townspeople. Almost every Egyptian family had a first born son because the son was the heir to all of their fortune and thats why they ate the most BREAD products.. because meat wasnt available (remember the death of the livestock?) the locusts were attracted by the hail because of the wetness of the soil (they lay their eggs there) and pooped on the grain which became molded
A bunch of babies eat let's say infected baby food.. the babies die.. now normally adults don't eat baby food but say for some reason someone had surgery done to their mouth they decided to eat baby food.. they die, my point is people will look at the 100 deaths of the babies as more of a tragedy than 1 adult
again u arent listening....nothing was said about the first born eating meat....the livestock had died off....that was one of the plaques...there was no meat.....they were eating the only thing they had left...supposedly tainted grain.....the bigger mystery here is your inability to comprehend what you read or hear
Scientific thought is a form of "faith thinking" to a certain extent; it too begins with a certain fiduciary commitment to a particular methodology. Real scientists understand this. The more important question, in my opinion, is whether the two (science and faith) are mutually exclusive from one another.
what i dnt get is why if all animals are supposed to be equal in the eyes of god, then why would god have the livestock diseased and killed to punish a group of humans. also why did moses tell the jews to put BLOOD from lambs they had killed on the doors to protect them. to punish humans god allowed alot of animals to die and be sacrificed.
krypticavalanch 4 months ago
@krypticavalanch Where in the BIble does it say that all animals are supposed to be equal in the eyes of God? If that were the case the eating of meat would be forbidden in Christian religions.
mattymacg09 4 months ago
@mattymacg09 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.
this suggests equality.
krypticavalanch 4 months ago
explained =/= debunked
If anything this proves the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible.
ShadowWulf14 1 year ago
@ShadowWulf14
that is a very interesting point you make, the coincidence of all these things happening in, what i am assuming, a relatively short amount of time cannot be overlooked.
paulinovalerio 9 months ago
this is nice, but they dont explain how NONE OF IT HAPPENNED TO THE JEWS!
123jsass 1 year ago 2
@123jsass Who says it didn't? Just because the Bible said that the Jews weren't plagued by these as well, doesn't mean they actually weren't.
mattymacg09 4 months ago
@mattymacg09 The only jews that were killed were those that didn't follow the command that moses gave (such as staying inside). All the egyptians that were bad to the jews were all affected by the plague.
123jsass 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@123jsass Again, just because the Bible says it doesn't make it true.,,,
mattymacg09 4 months ago
First of all to say that "Christians argue that...(fill in whatever you want)..", is a pretty sweeping generalization. The belief that "spirituality disproves science" is not required to be a christian, and in fact not believed by many, many christians. Even if that statement was true, why would you argue within the original fallacy instead of pointing it out in the first place?
jlipoth 1 year ago
i love science!!!! yay science explains EVERYTHING!!!!!
J8neSez 1 year ago
Well, this is highly stretched and distorted to fit the main plot of the movie, but some of what she's saying is correct. There was a plague that struck northern Africa between 1347 and 1349 (AD not BC), there is evidence of mycotoxins affecting crops throughout that time, and Blue Tongue virus was noted (only 3 things, not 10). Either way, this rant was constructed to fit the movie and seem logical, and should not be taken seriously. Though it does provide a good example of a chain of events.
ajdrewello 1 year ago
Obviously the 10 plagues occurred by nature and scientific fashion, I believe God's arsenal are Earth's elements. People always assume that books such as the bible, never mentioned science, but If you study the bible, it will make you question your ideology, there is so much logical explanations to what seems supernatural, but what really MAKES me wonder is why does the universe work the way it works, not HOW?
MarryMeGirl41 1 year ago 2
@ Mons - She isn't saying that these things are ACTUALLY what happened. She simply stated what would be scientific explainations for the plagues. And why is it stupid? If that is what her characters' beliefs are why is it any different from believing in God or aliens or some other thing? That is their choice to believe it. Who are you to say it's stupid?
sledgefest 1 year ago
I'm with the black guy. LMAOing at that explanation.
Moseslawgiver 2 years ago
I'm an atheist, but I still have to say this is completely stupid. There is no way in hell that we could be able to tell that this precise chain of events occurred based on evidence available to us.
Making up a story to disprove made up Bliblical stories makes you just as bad as those who believe in the Bible without good evidence.
Obviously the Bible is not a historical document. You don't need to make up shit to feel better about your own beliefs.
MonsBadonicus 2 years ago 2
@MonsBadonicus your smart
MarryMeGirl41 1 year ago
Agreed. Science for the WIN!
wonderwhix 2 years ago
Jilipoth!?!?! I'm asking the same question! If I said a month in advance I'm going to rob a bank and leave a picture of elvis at the scene, and a month later a bank is robbed and a photo of elvis is on the floor, these SAME group of scientist would then go and prove I didn't do it because the bank was robbed and elvis photo was there. Scientist are too smart for their own good.
phanjazm 2 years ago
So let me get this straight. This video is to prove that the plagues in the OT actually did happen?
jlipoth 2 years ago
@jlipoth
Its explaining that it did happen because of nature, not because of magic, or because Egypt was cursed by God.
Zeroxify13 1 year ago
@Zeroxify13
Interesting - It would run the same argument as to say "Oranges aren't actually orange because they are round." If we hold logical thought with any sense of regard, IS THIS NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS?
jlipoth 1 year ago
@jlipoth
Yes, but Christians argue that it was God who cursed Egypt.
Zeroxify13 1 year ago
No, that's not what that statement means. The book of Numbers shows that no Israelite under the age of 20 went into the promised land. The wilderness experience lasted until everyone over 20 died. No 20 year old Israelite ex-Egptian slave would believe they would inherit a land historically filled with empire's military turmoil unless it was true. It would be ludacris to believe such a story with Egypt, Aassryia, Babylonia, Persia, ect, etc, etc breathing down your nations throat.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
If you are defending atheISM, I would like to know where we came from, why were are here, why is there morality, and what happens when we die? Atheists claim the answer to question one is evolution, which doesn't even have sceintific validity yet. They say we are here to survive and reproduce, but some take their lives and choose not to. They say there isn't good and evil, only suffering and not suffering. Finally, they say nothing happens when we die. Do you believe these widely held beliefs?
AntonJT81 2 years ago
I never said the age of a religion makes is more true than another.
People are "converts" to atheism just as much as some are "converts" to other religions. Does that mean you think Richard Dawkins, the famous Atheist, was weak-willed, stupid, and traumatic since he rejected faith because of his upbringing? What about Madalyn Murrah O'Hare? Both "converted" to atheism because of traumatic times.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
The age of the religion doesn't matter, it doesn't make it true. We know the phoenecians were worshipping bulls long before the Israelite people. So you think those "converts" are stupid? They would be stupid if it wasn't true and the events didn't happen. But, they did. The Israelites were led by God out of Egypt and there is significant evidence for it.
I'm understanding your worldview to be science, don't you see the flaws? Or, has your world raised you were you can't see its flaws?
AntonJT81 2 years ago
You really think people would have followed the religion for nearly 3500 years if this was a contradiction? If anyone in any culture heard someone proclaim they were quoting God himself, and those quotes were directly contradictory, you think they would really follow him? You can't force our worldview onto theirs which is close to 3500 years old.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
One thing that I think it difficult to understand are these "omni's." God is given these characteristics by the church/religion which the scriptures do not verify. God is not necessarily omniscient in scripture, and even if he is indeed omnipotent, he limits his own omnipotence in the early part of Genesis. The contradictions you see are not generated by scripture or God, they are generated by the church.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
In order for something to be 'contradictory' it must make absolutely opposite claims. Like mentioned earlier, pantheists can claim God is BOTH personal AND non-personal.
My scriptures do not absolutely claim opposite attributes. However, the do infer qualified attributes. This is why I said in my 5th post the Bible has "tensions" but they are not contradictions.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
You're right. It is pantheism. But, it is internally contradictory which I why I do not believe in it.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
Well, first off Hinduism follow dialectical systems of logic. They can basically assert that any quality of their gods are both/and. God is BOTH person AND non-personal and we're supposed to not worry about the contradictions. So it become a vacuum which suctions in everything. Christianity follows either/or non-contradictory logic. So, EITHER you believe in christ and go to heaven OR you don't. But, a pantheist usually says you must follow EITHER the dialectical system of logic OR nothing
AntonJT81 2 years ago
else. You cannot use the either/or system of logic to prove the both/and. Therefore, if they follow their logic honestly, it shouldn't matter what religion anyone is. Islam says God is all-powerful, yet cannot be begotten. So he isn't all-powerful. They also says the revelation Qur'an can override revelation Old Testament because it's been lost; so who is to say revelation X can't come in and claim perfection? There are many things to address which would take days. But, those systems are
AntonJT81 2 years ago
internally contradictory. Islam also claims that the prophet Mohammed was a prophet to the world. They also say the Qur'an is understood in its fullest capacity in pure Arabic. So, since the world doesn't speak Arabic, Mohammed was not a prophet to the world.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
There are many microbiologists who will confirm that those "systems" do not have the possibility of existing purely by random chance. As for many of them, a designer is part of the equation.
You cannot make the statement, "God does not exist" and prove it with natural science because the very statement is neither scientific nor mathematical. Because science itself has set its parameters, it can never disprove the existance of God. There is a philosophical pre-commitment that is made.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
I'm a little confused as to what you mean. Both science and the Bible seek to explain what is true. Science is limited to natural explanation only which makes it non-absolute and not empirical. The Bible is not. It can explain natural and supernatural truth. However, the Bible is a book about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It is not a science book or a math book. It never claimed scientific or mathematical truth. It claims theological truth. It must always be read theology first.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
oh how crazy natural events happen throughout the history of our earth, there has to be an explanation for these unusual chain of events well what about the tsunami in indonesia 2004and the eartquakes aall around the wolrd and the increase heat waves, earthquakes , etc. As our technology and improvement in scientific research has increased so has our understanding of our world we live, if you dont remember science DISPROVED that the earth was the center of theuniverse,not quite what we think now
Aguiraable 2 years ago
I would disagree. There are certainly "tensions" in the Bible. But the same is true in science. There are many, many tensions in science, but that doesn't make science not true. The same with God. Jst because there are tensions in the Bible doesn't make God not true.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
I agree that none can prove or disprove the existance of any gods based on their system of interpretation. I choose Christianity because it's what best describes reality and because only God is big enough to answer the quesitons of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. I do not choose others faiths because their religious systems are either internally or externally contradictory.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
The scientific community is limited to natural explanation only. Science cannot disprove the existance of God.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
Why can't God use natural phenomena to fulfill his purpose?
AntonJT81 2 years ago
How are the 10 plagues "debunked?" Doesn't this prove them, not debunk them? Indeed, there is scientific plausibility that the Santorini Volcano of Greece set these plagues in motion, but the volcano's eruption is dated at 1600B.C. Scholars debate the dating of Exodus at 1440B.C. or 1290 B.C. Far from this eruption. There is still much work to be done to suggest this.
AntonJT81 2 years ago
oh just so you know if you actually thought about it during these "plagues" would have been the perfect time to escape for the slaves.Egypt was in chaos,people dying,famine,just so many things that would have made escape easier than ever.The egyptians most likely chased after them because they didnt want to lose their sense of authority,which would explain the artifacts.Once again i used logic to explain these things,not blind faith.Good try though ;)
xaaronhufanx53 2 years ago
i don't believe it but i will say one thing though she is sexy
nitewolf89 2 years ago
hehe i explained this to my mom and she said"shut the fuck up youre wrong"the funny thing is that my stepdad is an atheist,im an atheist,and my sisters an atheist.I really hope that us athesists can find proof that were right.(by the way im not trying to disrespect any christians or other religions)
xaaronhufanx53 2 years ago
what i want to know is how you came to this conclusion. We will never know exactly how these plagues happened. This is one theory in a fiction movie. And this does not "debunk" anything, if anything this video would actually prove that all of these plagues could happen at one time given the right conditions. I am sorry that a Christian said that to you after presenting evidence because that is not the way to go about a debate.
screename4231 2 years ago
only part of the film that made sense, sorry but the reaping sucked
laxgoalie2010 2 years ago
Thanks to this film, im gonna go to my local libray tomorow, get a bible and place it in the fiction section...
:)
KBS6991 2 years ago
thats sad that a terrible movie by any standards has changed your worldview so quickly. if i showed you a clip from a movie explaining the crossing of the red sea, would you convert to Christianity or would you have your own opinion?
screename4231 2 years ago
utuber stfu. when 'GOD' will decide to show up, for the whole world to see, then MAYBE more people will start believing.
NeverPeace20 2 years ago
then, there would be no need for faith
AntonJT81 2 years ago
you mean blind-faith
NeverPeace20 2 years ago
UTuberSandwich LOL @ WHY IT HAPPENED... You say God did it for humiliation... but wait i thought GOD LOVED EVERYONE? ... you see how you don't know what your talking about (i don't claim to know either) just saying i'm looking for some consistency. = p
bible = outdated / folklore of it's time.
CAinfowarrior 2 years ago
The only thing the actor is doing is explaining what happened and how it happened, she never explained WHY IT HAPPENED. 430 had passed and it was time for Israel to be free of slavery to Egypt. God used all science at his disposal to make that happen.
UTuberSandwich 2 years ago
40 years after the Exodus from Egypt , Rahab the prostitute told Caleb and Joshua that her nation still feared the Jews. the whole point of the 10 plagues was for God to humiliate 10 of Eygpts most potent Gods. The killing of the Egyptian first born was so ON Point that the Egyptians let the Israelites leave Egypt giving them gifts of silver and gold before changing his mind. The killing of the first born was the ULTIMATE humiliation of the Egyptian Sun God of Life -RA.
UTuberSandwich 2 years ago
Indeed Gara :>
haslum15 2 years ago
BOOM HEADSHOT!
gaara2910 2 years ago
!!!!!!!!
DevBlazed 2 years ago
Nice scientific explanation, which means Moses was right he was very accurate in predicting those plagues to happen. This make Moses the greatest scientist of all humankind.
dantankun 3 years ago
Maybe they happened often, literacy and record keeping predate religion.
BentSlightly 2 years ago
I hope everyone knows this is a movie.
HerbsareLife 3 years ago
Read the Bible lady...
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
this was my favorite scene in this movie!
bean45cc 3 years ago
What I think is amazing and quite odd...is that NO WHERE in Egyptian History does it tell of a Prince who takes the slaves into the desert. Egyptians kept their History, we know that. An event like that, someone would write about... Not to mention that they were in the desert of 40yrs. NO archaeological Dig have EVER found ANY trace of these people. 100,000 people living in the desert for 40 yrs, and no one ever dies, or drops a bowl, or loses a sandal...Jews are pretty fucking tidy...
ffxiarcadius 3 years ago
Again, to seek historical verification of the biblical stories is in my estimation to miss the point of the stories themselves. The Bible is developing a covenantal history. And the biblical story is probably using hyperbole when it describes the exprience of the desert. By the way, it's listed at 600,000 (Exo 12:37) and this generation is understood as dying in the desert/wilderness. So, people did die. There is a question, however, of exactly what route they used.
metavoice 3 years ago
Whats really amazing is that the Egyptians did write about a number of slaves ESCAPING captivity. Yes they where in the desert for 40 years out of punishment. And they have uncovered chariot wheels, two poles written in Hebrew on opposite sides of the red sea proclaiming God's grace, and a gold plated chariot that was only ridden by a pharaoh all between the same stretch of sea. And the Hebrews did not have a system for writing numbers, so we do not know how many their were, good try though.
screename4231 2 years ago
NickLuvs2laugh, first borns are always first borns even when they are older.
Sonicelderly 3 years ago
It's the Bible. It's mostly fiction. There's your explanation. No science required.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
she is saying that the first born usually ate the biggest portion with caused them to eat the most toxin and they died..well if the first born was an infant, this explanation would not apply because obviously the infant is not having the biggest portion.
NickLuvs2laugh 3 years ago
she didnt say the first born were infants...they were the first born...as in the children born before any other children...as the oldest child they recieved the larger portion of food amongst the children....why do you assume because they were born first that at that time theyb would still be infants....first born not newly born
gyroflier 3 years ago
told!
Spedo09 3 years ago
Meh. Too much coincidence for me. Just like the big bang and evolution.
OmegaZenith21 3 years ago
It makes no sense....What if the first born was a baby who obviously didnt eat any meat???....explain their death
NickLuvs2laugh 3 years ago
it was 1400 B.C the egyptians saw that most of the first borns were dying and wasnt looking into the death of their dying townspeople. Almost every Egyptian family had a first born son because the son was the heir to all of their fortune and thats why they ate the most BREAD products.. because meat wasnt available (remember the death of the livestock?) the locusts were attracted by the hail because of the wetness of the soil (they lay their eggs there) and pooped on the grain which became molded
Spedo09 3 years ago 2
Here's an example...
A bunch of babies eat let's say infected baby food.. the babies die.. now normally adults don't eat baby food but say for some reason someone had surgery done to their mouth they decided to eat baby food.. they die, my point is people will look at the 100 deaths of the babies as more of a tragedy than 1 adult
Spedo09 3 years ago
for one thing the ancient egyptians wer very "superstitious" and not all of the babies died but alot did and they would have seen that as a sign
gothgirl12322222222 3 years ago
again u arent listening....nothing was said about the first born eating meat....the livestock had died off....that was one of the plaques...there was no meat.....they were eating the only thing they had left...supposedly tainted grain.....the bigger mystery here is your inability to comprehend what you read or hear
gyroflier 3 years ago
Meat = Dead Animals.
lovesmasher 2 years ago
Derrty's an asshole.
5sixVII 3 years ago
.......???
BuTT3RFLY94 3 years ago
It's stupid to think the people of that time were just stupid.
blogologist 4 years ago
Well I understand but what we think now makes more sence. I dont beleive god made the earth.
bphussar 4 years ago 2
WOW! That is pretty weird.
BillyPlaskanka 4 years ago 2
i dont realy believe that...i think God made it happen, and that alot of this scientific crap is a test of our faith
DerrtyEntBoi 4 years ago
Scientific thought is a form of "faith thinking" to a certain extent; it too begins with a certain fiduciary commitment to a particular methodology. Real scientists understand this. The more important question, in my opinion, is whether the two (science and faith) are mutually exclusive from one another.
metavoice 3 years ago