More on Moses history -- Justin's question.

I was more curious as to whether or not his theories could hold water or if they were weak and full of holes. So in your opinion you think he doesnt present any new or legitimate theories? I mean is there even a chance that he could be right when it comes to the Ten Plagues? I to noticed how he seemed to support the existence of Moses and his upbringing. I thought it was peculiar how he went from affirming the person and his history, building up the feeling of corroboration, then suddenly attempts to smear the image of Moses when it comes to the reliability of Biblical accounts of the 10 plagues and the Reed/Red Sea issue. I haven't read too much on the OT history of things so Im not well equipped when it comes to these topics. Justin

You do see the pattern on this Sea Crossing guy though now, right? He agrees with all of the historicity of the people, cultures, places, and events. But he totally tries to erase the idea that any of the miracles were real. Get it? All the people were real, but the miracles were not. Why does he single out that record of the miracles being "explain-away-able" but not the people? He is doing some very exacting cherry-picking. He very obviously --chooses-- to believe the parts that he wishes to champion as "confirmation" of Biblical trust. But then he turns right around and disclaims the miracles that are recorded in the same documents. He obviously is "having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." This is a hideous seduction found in abundance today. They try to get you to believe they are friendly toward the Bible (something we are starving to hear from the world today) and then they make a condition of "no miracles" to their supposed "friendship" to us and our Bible. Not legit !! This is not legit. I'm glad he affirms the history. But he is a false friend. The miracles are part of that history!
And ... what's so miraculous about the Nile turning red and the frogs and the flies, etc ... if there were obvious natural explanations for them? Wouldn't the brilliant Egyptian civilization have seen and realized this point, also? Why were --they-- impressed? And they were not "primitive" people easily mystified. They invented architecture and geometry for goodness sake. I truly believe we are far more "primitive" mentally, than they were.
No ... taking out the miraculous neuters the Bible. This is common in false teachings ... "denying the power thereof." If Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young girl" ... why was that a "sign" of the Messiah? "Young girls" have babies -- every day! No, taking out the miracles is far to great a price to pay for the "friendship with the world" which equates then to "emnity with God." I agree with that author totally about the history. I disagree with him totally, about the miracles! I hope this helps to clear things up Justin. God bless. DrJ

Was Moses -- a myth?

Hey Dr. Jackson. My name is Justin. You and I talked about a year ago about demanding to know the truth about the validity of the Bible and so forth. I enjoy your CreationTruth website very much. That, along with Dr. William Lane Craig's works have helped me immensely. Please read this article and give me your thoughts on it. It was on bbc.com a while back. The article contains scientist's explanations on the so called miracles relating to Moses leading his people across the Red Sea in Exodus. It's boggled my mind. Your help is greatly appreciated.

-Justin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/moses_1.shtml

Well Justin, the first "symptom" of this guy being against religion ... is his refusal to say 1031 BC ... instead he uses the atheist term BCE which means "Before Current Era." Lame-o ... he doesn't even want to abbreviate "Christ." He also belittles The Ten Commandments, emphasizing that there were hundreds more (the Levitical codes, etc). Then he says nobody knows who wrote them. Sure we do -- all Jews, Muslims, and Christians know -- God wrote them -- Himself. Hmm.
He then goes on to state all of the discoveries that the City of Ramses actually did exist and that "Habiru" slaves were used to build it. He then admits to the historicity of the Babylonian Captivity as recorded in the Scriptures. He then finds evidence that the baby-Moses-basket story could not have been faked centuries later. He makes the case that Moses becoming "the Prince of Egypt" was completely plausible. He then does the old favorite of trying to say that there are natural explanations for the 10 plagues of Egypt recorded in the Bible. He pulls out the old "Reed Sea" / "Red Sea" thing. Even if a tsunami did split the Red Sea for the Children of Israel -- having it dry as a bone (and deep own underneath, too) for them to drag heavy-wheeled carts across it -- would have sure been a miracle in and of itself ! The political parallels drawn are old hat, too, at the end. But ... this all really sounds good, if you can get over the BCE thing, and all of the trying to explain away the miracles! Yep, but I liked the historical affirmation part of it fine, Justin. Did you have any specific questions about it? (Just ask here on the website comments option--I'll see it.) DrJ