Let Us Reason: The Exodus Story.....

[Dr H..]

Egypt, chronicled everything

Not true:

Considering, that Egypt was the greatest civilization during that period. However, if you study the history of ancient civilizations, kings and other leaders only recorded the victories not the defeats. The Egyptians were defeated [by God] and this would not have been recorded.

But, here is the other part, if the Exodus and other events were recorded. Remember, the Egyptian Libraries was looted and burned by the invaders. And they used he information to "claim" that the Romans and Greeks "invented' certain items.

The information is long lost or it's at the Vanitan [sp].

 

[JayRob]

Not true:

Considering, that Egypt was the greatest civilization during that period. However, if you study the history of ancient civilizations, kings and other leaders only recorded the victories not the defeats. The Egyptians were defeated [by God] and this would not have been recorded.

But, here is the other part, if the Exodus and other events were recorded. Remember, the Egyptian Libraries was looted and burned by the invaders. And they used he information to "claim" that the Romans and Greeks "invented' certain items.

The information is long lost or it's at the Vanitan [sp].

Dr. H, you failed to mention the fact that other kingdoms existed side by side with Egypt, who literally hated them with a passion.

One such enemy were the Hittites. They were expansionist people and would've loved to have attacked a weakened Eypt. They wouldn't have hesitated to write about the demise of their enemy by the "great sky god" of a ragtag group of former slaves.
The fact is that not one time did their records indicate such an event, an event that would've been the "9-1-1" story of their time.
Only in the bible is such a story mentioned.

Another hated enemy of Egypt were the Sumerians (Babylonians). Not one mention of an exodus consisting of 2-3 million former slaves. Not one mention of Egypt's mighty military being brought to it's knees by the god of these slaves.

Another hated enemy of Egypt were the Assyrians. Not one mention of Egypt's mighty army being overcome by water from the Red Sea. Not one mention of the god of former slaves getting the best of Egypt by having their firstborn fall dead, by having their waters turn to blood or by having large hailstones falling from the sky in the middle of the desert, while at the same time leaving the land of the slaves unscathed.
I didn't mention the three days of total darkness, something that has NEVER happened in the annals of time. Such a story of a three day total eclipse would've spread like wildfire to other parts of the region, but it didn't, not one word.

Again, do you realize how spectacular such events would've been back then, especially due to the fact that cultures back then were highly superstitious. That would've been the news of the day, of the month of the year.

Nothing is mentioned in their documents and records of any of those kingdoms, some who kept very detailed records of their military victories and the miliatary losses of their enemies.
Only in the bible are such incredible stories mentioned and with no supporting evidence.

Like I stated earlier, one would have to fix their mind to believe the following....that "the laws of nature were being held in suspense in favor of a group of slaves for such incredible events to have occurred, INSTEAD of the simple fact that the authors of the bible simply fabricated the truth to further their religion."
One would have to set their mind to believe that dependable laws, laws existing for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, simply stopped working for a few days, so that a group of slaves could be freed.
This is what one would have to believe if one believes in the biblical exodus story.

 

[JayRob]

As you pointed out, these guys are not archeologists or geologists. I reviewed film again for what they said about the rock. There is a reference made to God coming down on the mountain but nothing about the rock being burned. They talk of OTHERS saying that it was possibly volcanic, but in their physical inspection they found the rock to be different inside than out. The only conclusion that they stated was that the rock was not volcanic. They make no points as to what kind of rock is was.

Dacon, my point was that they "implied" that the rocks were burned by the OT god's presence on the mountain. They didn't mention the color of the lighter rocks sprinkled amongst the dark ones. They had an agenda from the start and that agenda was in no way objective. It was obvious to anyone watching was that their goal was to insinuate that their god appeared on that mountain and that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea where they said it did.

They followed a trail of biblical clues to reach their conclusion. The film mentions that they were required to leave some things that they found on the floor of the desert; there is no mention of what those things were on the tape.

Why didn't they mention what those "things" were? They could've cleared up a lot of confusion by saying "what" those "things" were. It's quite obvious that they didn't find anything of importance at that site or they would've said so with enthusiam, if only to support their theory and the sales of their video for unsuspecting minds.

Get this straight: I brought up video just as something to consider. I guess you gave them a lot more credit than I did.

I beg to differ. I don't have a copy, you do.

 

[Attack Dog]

But, here is the other part, if the Exodus and other events were recorded. Remember, the Egyptian Libraries was looted and burned by the invaders. And they used he information to "claim" that the Romans and Greeks "invented' certain items.

The information is long lost or it's at the Vanitan [sp].

No it is not. The Greeks and Romans knew where they came from. It was not until the age of the Exploration, the rise of the 4 major countries of Europe, that "the white wash" of history began. We would not know the truth if the information was not there to be studied, we just had to dig a little deeper. Thank God for men like Chieke Anta Diop, Dr. Ben, Dr. John Henrike Clarke, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, and Chancellor Williams.

That being said, we still cannot deny the Egyptian influence on Jewish religion and philosophy. The lawgiver was raised as a prince of Egypt and taught in its finest schools.

 

[dacontinent]

...It was obvious to anyone watching was that their goal was to insinuate that their god appeared on that mountain and that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea where they said it did.

Clearly.

Why didn't they mention what those "things" were? They could've cleared up a lot of confusion by saying "what" those "things" were. It's quite obvious that they didn't find anything of importance at that site or they would've said so with enthusiam, if only to support their theory and the sales of their video for unsuspecting minds...

I could speculate on a lot of things, but I can't tell you why they didn't. You could ask them.

...I beg to differ. I don't have a copy, you do.

Yes, I do. Read the tease and thought, "...this is interesting. For $5, I'll see what they have to say." I could have waited for someone else to post it on YouTube and see it like you did.

 

[JayRob]

To take this exodus story a bit further, the bible goes on to say that Moses was given ten commandments around this time at Mt. Sinai.

Why would Israelites need to be COMMANDED: not kill; to not steal; to not lie?
Didn't they know BEFORE reaching Mt. Sinai that killing, stealing and lying were wrong?

The Israelites also were told not to covet. This is basically a "thought" crime.
They were told by this OT god NOT to covet anything that belonged to their neighbor.

The problem with this is that when you read a few chapters over, this SAME god who commanded them not to covet their neighbor's property commanded them to take by force the land of their enemies, their women and their animals. What kind of b.s. is this? Don't covet your neighbor's property, women or animals, but I authorize you to take their land, women and animals?!
The OT god sounds like a roving schizophrenic, changing his mind and losing his temper time and time again.

The OT god even claimed to be a jealous god. This god recognized that there were OTHER gods as well because he told them not to have gods "before me".
This reminds me of the stories of the Greek gods who were always jealous of each other and fighting amongst themselves just as humans do. The actions of the OT god mimicks the Greek gods in their rage and anger toward humans.

Again, my question is.....did the Israelites not know that killing, stealing and lying were wrong before they encountered this OT god?

 

[Attack Dog]

Again, my question is.....did the Israelites not know that killing, stealing and lying were wrong before they encountered this OT god?

Sounds like The Coming Forth By Day and Night (The Egyptian Book of the Dead) to me.

To be honest, it is not uncommon for less advanced civilizations to "borrow" from those of higher standing.

 

[dacontinent]

...
Again, my question is.....did the Israelites not know that killing, stealing and lying were wrong before they encountered this OT god?

Perhaps I can lead you to the answer by asking some questions.

1. What was the purpose of the 10 commandments?
2. Who were they directed to?
3. For what kinds of interactions were they intended?

 

[Dr H..]

Attack

I think you missed my point, which is Alexander the Great and other invaded Egypt and stole the documents / books from the various libraries of Egypt.

That’s why I used the word “invadersâ€￾


We all [well most of us] know that neither the Greeks nor Romans were the first to developed mathematical equations, studied the solar system; navigated the world; perform medical operations and the list goes on. In fact Herodotus points out in some of his writings that the first “Olympicsâ€￾ were [first] in Egypt and after the Greeks and others saw this they copied the events and brought them Greece.


HERODOTUS' DESCRIPTION OF PERSIAN EGYPT CIRCA 450BC
Herodotus was aware of Egyptian antiguity and learning. He specifically mentioned geometry and land measurement, solar calendar, 12-part year, and mummification.

Were Egyptians Africans? Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)." [Herodotus, Histories, 167.] They also practised circumcision, unlike Mediterranean peoples of the time.

How much did Egyptians know about Africa?: The Assyrian King Necos (609-594BC) sent out an expedition from the Persian Gulf that circumnavigated Africa in three years, returning to Egypt through the Straits of Gibraltar. Herodotus did not believe it because the Phoenician navigators reported that as they traveled west below southern Africa, they saw the noon sun on their right side. (JJ: This is in fact true, because the southern tip of Africa is in the southern hemisphere. Note also that Herodotus is accurate when he described King Necos' canal.) [Selincourt, World, 226-227; Herodotus, Histories, 283-284. Note that Herodotus also says the Carthaginians circumnavigated Africa.]

 

[JayRob]

Perhaps I can lead you to the answer by asking some questions. What was the purpose of the 10 commandments?

You tell me.

Who were they directed to?

You tell me.

For what kinds of interactions were they intended?

You tell me.

 

[dacontinent]

You tell me.

You tell me.

You tell me.

I could, but that does not seem to work well for you. You read the text but you ask this question of it when then answers are VERY logical. I'm a little surprised that you asked the question. It seems almost like you don't know the answer.

 

[dacontinent]

I decided that I would go ahead and answer this question.

...Again, my question is.....did the Israelites not know that killing, stealing and lying were wrong before they encountered this OT god?

Yes.

 

[JayRob]

I could, but that does not seem to work well for you. You read the text but you ask this question of it when then answers are VERY logical. I'm a little surprised that you asked the question. It seems almost like you don't know the answer.

You asked me the questions. I simply asked you to do the same exact thing you requested of me.
When you answer the questions, I'll answer the questions.

Here are your questions:

What was the purpose of the 10 commandments?
Who were they directed to?
For what kinds of interactions were they intended?

Put forth your case so I can put forth mine. No need for you to shy away now.

In addition to giving them the ten commandments, the OT god commanded them not to covet other people's possessions, then hypocritically turned around and told them to go and TAKE the land, possessions, animals and women clearly belonging other men.

He commanded them to BREAK several of the commandments he JUST told them to observe. Stealing land. Killing humans. Taking what was their neighbors.
No just "god" in his right mind would do such a thing.
Thank goodness the OT god isn't real nor is the NT god.

 

[JayRob]

I decided that I would go ahead and answer this question.


Yes.

If they didn't know, then how did they survive for four hundred years in slavery without knowing that killing was wrong, that stealing from their neighbor was wrong, that coveting what was their neighbors was wrong? Please tell me you are joking.

The Chinese didn't have the ten commandments, yet their culture has survived for thousands of years. The Egyptians, Africans, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans and other cultures knew nothing of the bible's version of the ten commandments, yet they've survived far longer than the Israelites.

This blows your theory right out of the water.

 

[dacontinent]

If they didn't know, then how did they survive for four hundred years in slavery without knowing that killing was wrong, that stealing from their neighbor was wrong, that coveting what was their neighbors was wrong? Please tell me you are joking.

The Chinese didn't have the ten commandments, yet their culture has survived for thousands of years. The Egyptians, Africans, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans and other cultures knew nothing of the bible's version of the ten commandments, yet they've survived far longer than the Israelites.

This blows your theory right out of the water.

What theory is that? I have answered your question and proposed no theory at all.

 

[JayRob]

What theory is that? I have answered your question and proposed no theory at all.

Your theory is that the Israelites didn't survive without the commandments. How you know this, I have no idea.

Where did you answer my questions about your questions?
You can't even tell me HOW the Israelites survived in spite of not having the commandments. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

And the three questions you asked, you haven't answered those either.

 

[dacontinent]

Your theory is that the Israelites didn't survive without the commandments. How you know this, I have no idea...

That is absolutely INCORRECT. In fact, I have iterated no position on their survival until this post (see below).

...Where did you answer my questions about your questions?
You can't even tell me HOW the Israelites survived in spite of not having the commandments. If you don't want to answer, just say so...

I haven't answered your questions about the ones that I asked you. You asked:

Why would Israelites need to be COMMANDED: not kill; to not steal; to not lie?
Didn't they know BEFORE reaching Mt. Sinai that killing, stealing and lying were wrong?
...
Again, my question is.....did the Israelites not know that killing, stealing and lying were wrong before they encountered this OT god?

...and I answered in the affirmative.

As for how the Israelites survived without the commandments, they did so like any other people of the time. They managed to have enough civility, common bond, and recognition of their KINSHIP to keep from exterminating each other. They weren't just entirely stupid.

...And the three questions you asked, you haven't answered those either.

No. I asked them of you. You have made no attempt at answering them. I did you the courtesy of answering your question; please return the courtesy.

 

[JayRob]

As for how the Israelites survived without the commandments, they did so like any other people of the time. They managed to have enough civility, common bond, and recognition of their KINSHIP to keep from exterminating each other. They weren't just entirely stupid.

This is the crux of my entire reason for bringing up the subject about the commandments.
You admitted in your own words that the Israelite people survived WITHOUT the commandments. You even went on to say that they had enough civility, common bond and recognition of their kinship to keep from exterminating each other.

People in general have lived for thousands of years without the biblical ten commandments. Morality did not start with any ten commandments.
Religious folks take so much credit away from human beings as being the author of their own morality and give too much credit to their "sky-god's" teachings as being the cause of moral and ethical teachings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious folks failed to realize that their sky gods oftentimes commanded that his people kill their own, exterminate other peoples, take their land, their women, their children, and THEN turned around and condemned them to eternal death in an everburning hell fire. They call that morality and justice. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

No. I asked them of you. You have made no attempt at answering them. I did you the courtesy of answering your question; please return the courtesy.

Since you are rather reluctant to answer your own questions, I have no problem doing so.

You asked:

1. What was the purpose of the 10 commandments? In Exodus 20, supposedly they were given to the Israelites to offer them a sense of morality and loyalty to their god. This runs contrary to your opinion because you all but admitted they ALREADY had a knowledge of morality and ethics. That leaves one more reason. It was to teach them to bow down to a tyrant dictator by first learning to fear him, while at the same time learning to "love" him. This is a form of sado-masochism to the n-th degree that makes no sense at all.

2. Who were they directed to? First of all, to the Israelites, then supposedly to humanity as a whole.
Nevermind that humanity already had them before this fiction book came on the scene. See the Egyptian Hammurabi laws for more info.

One more thing to note....if Moses was a real character, then by being an Egyptian leader, he would've been taught from the Egyptian book of the dead, the book containing a version of the ten commandments, later given by Moses.
Moses HAD to know these commandments before becoming leader of the Israelites. Every leader of Egypt was taught from this book. So in essence, perhaps Moses didn't get this info from any OT god after all.

3. For what kinds of interactions were they intended? As mentioned earlier, they were supposedly brought about or copied so that humans could learn to fear their OT god, yet love him at the same time.
They were also supposedly given so that humans could learn to interact with one another, something the Israelites failed to do, inspite of being guided by their sky-god. Why? Because they couldn't help but follow after the example of their OT sky god by mimicking his rage and anger toward each other and toward their enemies. They learned to behave exactly as he taught them.....by EXAMPLE.

Again, humans more than 2,000 years earlier, had morality and justice or they wouldn't have existed side by side by up until the time Moses came on the scene with his version of the ten commandments.

 

[dacontinent]

This is the crux of my entire reason for bringing up the subject about the commandments.
You admitted in your own words that the Israelite people survived WITHOUT the commandments. You even went on to say that they had enough civility, common bond and recognition of their kinship to keep from exterminating each other.

People in general have lived for thousands of years without the biblical ten commandments. Morality did not start with any ten commandments.
Religious folks take so much credit away from human beings as being the author of their own morality and give too much credit to their "sky-god's" teachings as being the cause of moral and ethical teachings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious folks failed to realize that their sky gods oftentimes commanded that his people kill their own, exterminate other peoples, take their land, their women, their children, and THEN turned around and condemned them to eternal death in an everburning hell fire. They call that morality and justice. Again, nothing could be further from the truth...

A few months ago I talked with some missionaries back from Tanzania who interact with the Masai. One of the things that they mentioned about the behavior of the people is that it is perfectly moral and ethical among the Masai that a warrior who is out hunting and comes upon a "hut" at the end of his day to declare it his for the night. The woman of that family would then serve all of his pleasures for that evening until his departure on the next day. Now, I warn you - Masai or not, please don't try that with my wife while I am out of town. You will be hurt badly, either before or after I return - or both before and after I return. What would happen to you will also be perfectly moral.

Since you are rather reluctant to answer your own questions, I have no problem doing so.

You asked:

1. What was the purpose of the 10 commandments? In Exodus 20, supposedly they were given to the Israelites to offer them a sense of morality and loyalty to their god. This runs contrary to your opinion because you all but admitted they ALREADY had a knowledge of morality and ethics. That leaves one more reason. It was to teach them to bow down to a tyrant dictator by first learning to fear him, while at the same time learning to "love" him. This is a form of sado-masochism to the n-th degree that makes no sense at all.

2. Who were they directed to? First of all, to the Israelites, then supposedly to humanity as a whole.
Nevermind that humanity already had them before this fiction book came on the scene. See the Egyptian Hammurabi laws for more info.

One more thing to note....if Moses was a real character, then by being an Egyptian leader, he would've been taught from the Egyptian book of the dead, the book containing a version of the ten commandments, later given by Moses.
Moses HAD to know these commandments before becoming leader of the Israelites. Every leader of Egypt was taught from this book. So in essence, perhaps Moses didn't get this info from any OT god after all.

3. For what kinds of interactions were they intended? As mentioned earlier, they were supposedly brought about or copied so that humans could learn to fear their OT god, yet love him at the same time.
They were also supposedly given so that humans could learn to interact with one another, something the Israelites failed to do, inspite of being guided by their sky-god. Why? Because they couldn't help but follow after the example of their OT sky god by mimicking his rage and anger toward each other and toward their enemies. They learned to behave exactly as he taught them.....by EXAMPLE.

Again, humans more than 2,000 years earlier, had morality and justice or they wouldn't have existed side by side by up until the time Moses came on the scene with his version of the ten commandments.

Those were better answers than I expected. I would like to respond by helping to understand them a bit better.

1. In Exodus 20, they were given to the Israelites to remind them of their responsibility to God and to each other. The people groups that they were to encounter did not hold this set of values. These behaviors would help to distinguish them among those people. They would encounter people who were polytheistic; who would have have such things prostitution, concupiscence, and human sacrifice as part of their worship of those gods; who would have rulers over them who would be deemed absolute in their behavior - meaning that lying, stealing, coveting, etc., were acceptable by their gods and by their people. In demonstrating their obedience to God by keeping His commandments, they would be distinguished as a people and He would be distinguished as God. The giving of the tablets codified those standards rather than allowing them to be assumptions. Furthermore, the re-written tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant to further show their significance.
   
   As for "bowing down", that is a proper position for a worshiper and probably "makes no sense at all" to a non-worshiper.
2. I saw the Code of Hammurabi in the Lourve when I visited Paris 20 years ago. There are 282 laws in that code. The Hittites, Assyrians, and other people groups also had codes of varying lengths and detail. So, having a code was certainly not a new or unique thing at the time the commandments were delivered to Moses. The points of significance are
   • the God of the Israelites authored the ones for Israel
   • the first two laws really constituted the basis of everything else
   • there were no stated penalties for violation intimated in the law itself
   SOME elements of the 10 Commandments are shared with SOME of the codes of other peoples, Egypt included. There is no harm in that. Remember, they had just spent 400 years in Egypt, most of which they were forced to live under a different code than the Egyptians. Israel was not accountable to God for what was in the other codes, just as you and I comply with with US laws and not those of Amsterdam and the Netherlands. Scripture is clear that the intent was through the covenant between God (Almighty) and the Israelites (among the least of people groups) the world would come to recognize that everything accomplished by this people group was because of their covenant with Him.
3. I felt this was your most accurate answer in intent and worst in explanation. As mentioned earlier, these were given for interaction between God and each other. These were not war conventions or rules of engagement with the enemy, as you seem to assert. It is clear from the scripture that God knew they would encounter warring peoples and have to deal with fierce opposition. Even when they would enter the Promised Land they were instructed to drive the others out or risk assimilating their behaviors. THAT was one of the HUGE failures of Israel and severely impacted their execution of God's plan in the land.
   The point of the 10 commandments was not morality and ethics but to demonstrate relationship, which did not come until the personification of Jesus the Christ.

 

[JayRob]

A few months ago I talked with some missionaries back from Tanzania who interact with the Masai. One of the things that they mentioned about the behavior of the people is that it is perfectly moral and ethical among the Masai that a warrior who is out hunting and comes upon a "hut" at the end of his day to declare it his for the night. The woman of that family would then serve all of his pleasures for that evening until his departure on the next day. Now, I warn you - Masai or not, please don't try that with my wife while I am out of town. You will be hurt badly, either before or after I return - or both before and after I return. What would happen to you will also be perfectly moral.

How is that worse than the Old Testament god telling over 600,000 Israelite men to drive out the inhabitants from their own land by killing all the men, killing ALL the women who aren't virgins, killing all the children, killing all the babies, but keeping for themselves women who are virgins?
Judging from your description, the Masai evils are not even worth comparing to the evils of the Old Testament.

What if you were an alien minding your own business, in YOUR own house and Israelite invaders came to kill you, your wife and take your daughter(s)? Would you have fought back against the Israelites or would you have invited them to have their way?

It's highly hypocritical of Christians to point out the injustices of other cultures, while ignoring their own injustices that are often many times worse.

 

[JayRob]

Those were better answers than I expected. I would like to respond by helping to understand them a bit better.

1. In Exodus 20, they were given to the Israelites to remind them of their responsibility to God and to each other. The people groups that they were to encounter did not hold this set of values. These behaviors would help to distinguish them among those people. They would encounter people who were polytheistic; who would have have such things prostitution, concupiscence, and human sacrifice as part of their worship of those gods; who would have rulers over them who would be deemed absolute in their behavior - meaning that lying, stealing, coveting, etc., were acceptable by their gods and by their people. In demonstrating their obedience to God by keeping His commandments, they would be distinguished as a people and He would be distinguished as God. The giving of the tablets codified those standards rather than allowing them to be assumptions. Furthermore, the re-written tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant to further show their significance.

1. 
   
   What difference did it make that the other people were living their lives as they chose? That's called freedom of choice. They were not the aggressors, thieves or killers. The Israelites were.
   Would it be "just" for the Mexicans to attack the U.S. because they didn't like our lifestyle?
   
   The Israelites could've been given uninhabited territory due to the vast amount of desert in the area.
   Their sky god had every opportunity to bless the desert with rain and provide everything needed for his people to make it blossom.
   
   Instead, he chose to mercilessly exterminate whole groups of INNOCENT people, including children and babies, simply because they were in existence in land he wanted to give to his people.
   
   This is no different than any modern day dictator tyrant. The whole goal of the Israelites was to gain land belonging to other people. They didn't bother to work and find land that wasn't inhabited, they wanted to steal, kill and destroy the existing cultures of others for no just reason at all.
   
   The Israelites stole, killed and coveted. It's a shame that some Christians are having to lie (another forbidden commandment) and say that these were "just" and "moral" acts committed by their sky god out of love. Are you of this opinion? Hopefully you're not as logically backwards to think such as some are.
   
   

   As for "bowing down", that is a proper position for a worshiper and probably "makes no sense at all" to a non-worshiper.

   
   Yes, that is the proper position for praising tyrants, dictators and despots, something the Old Testament readers of the sky god should be quite familiar with.

 

[JayRob]

I saw the Code of Hammurabi in the Lourve when I visited Paris 20 years ago. There are 282 laws in that code. The Hittites, Assyrians, and other people groups also had codes of varying lengths and detail. So, having a code was certainly not a new or unique thing at the time the commandments were delivered to Moses. The points of significance are

[*]the God of the Israelites authored the ones for Israel

How do you know that these commandments weren't copied from other cultures? The odds of the Israelites copying are extremely high.
It's also highly evident that existing cultures had a semblance of morality and ethics long before the bible came on the scene, so in essence, there's nothing great about the ten commandments in Exodus. You all but admitted it.
It's only great to those who don't know history and where religions originated and why.

the first two laws really constituted the basis of everything else

The first two laws had to do with a selfish man-made tyrannical sky god who admitted to being jealous of other gods.

there were no stated penalties for violation intimated in the law itself

That's not true at all. The penalty is death for disobedience....death.
Deut. 5:9 says "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

Death is pronounced on ALL who disobeyed.

SOME elements of the 10 Commandments are shared with SOME of the codes of other peoples, Egypt included. There is no harm in that. Remember, they had just spent 400 years in Egypt, most of which they were forced to live under a different code than the Egyptians. Israel was not accountable to God for what was in the other codes, just as you and I comply with with US laws and not those of Amsterdam and the Netherlands. Scripture is clear that the intent was through the covenant between God (Almighty) and the Israelites (among the least of people groups) the world would come to recognize that everything accomplished by this people group was because of their covenant with Him.

You should've said, "the 10 commandments are copies of some of the codes of other peoples.
There's no need to try and justify the obvious fact that the OT authors simply plagiarized the rules, laws and ethics of other cultures, turned around and used it as their own for the purpose of creating what's called an Old Testament. The New Testament is derived from previous religions, including the OT.

How could the world come to respect a nation that actually STOLE their rituals, laws, codes and called it their own? That makes no sense at all.
The Israelites presented no codes, laws or ordinances that weren't in existence when they supposedly came out of Egypt. No serious originality whatsoever came from the Israelites, except perhaps a sky god who wanted to exterminate all peoples who didn't bow down to him.
Most pagan gods were nowhere near to being as evil and tyrannical as the OT god.

 

[JayRob]

[*]I felt this was your most accurate answer in intent and worst in explanation. As mentioned earlier, these were given for interaction between God and each other. These were not war conventions or rules of engagement with the enemy, as you seem to assert. It is clear from the scripture that God knew they would encounter warring peoples and have to deal with fierce opposition. Even when they would enter the Promised Land they were instructed to drive the others out or risk assimilating their behaviors. THAT was one of the HUGE failures of Israel and severely impacted their execution of God's plan in the land.
The point of the 10 commandments was not morality and ethics but to demonstrate relationship, which did not come until the personification of Jesus the Christ.

Who said that the ten commandments were rules of engagement? I simply stated that Moses copied them and that their sky god forced his people to break them by commanding them to invade other nations.
Besides, there are plenty chapters in the Old Testament listing war conventions and rules of engagement no matter how unjust they were.

Again, there's no reason why the Israelites had to have land belonging to other people.
A god of real love and compassion would've taken them to a place where he had already prepared for them since he KNEW beforehand that they were going to be released.

Why did he have to wait for them to be released? Why did he have to wait for them to kill off all of the innocent men, women, children and babies in hand to hand combat? Why did this sky god have to make enemies when their were no original enemies of the Israelites to begin with, except Egypt?

If this sky god had created a land flowing with milk and honey in the middle of the desert, surely that would've gotten the attention of other nations in a positive way.
Instead, this tyrant attacks and kills not only his own people by keeping them in the desert for 40 years, he kills off innocent people in nations that had nothing to do with attacking his people. In other words, he wanted to scare people into obeying him. This type of act never works in the long run.

The Israelites originally were invaders, killers and thieves. This is what the OT sky founded his people and culture on.
Even today, the so-called nation of Israel continues to invade, kill and take Palestinian land simply because they believe a bunch of lies from the OT that the land belongs to them.
The apple don't fall too far from the tree, neither does ignorance.

THIS is why I know that the Old Testament religion is a man-made religion, not a god-made religion. Any real god would have more sense than to follow such nonsense and they would have to know that forcing people into never-ending wars never works in the long run.
This is where the Christian religion learned from the OT tyrannical religion and changed it's tune to focus on love instead of war....until the book of Revelation, nevertheless, it can never distance itself from the OT in that the same tyrannical god who was the god of the OT is the SAME god in the New Testament.

 

[dacontinent]

How is that worse than the Old Testament god telling over 600,000 Israelite men to drive out the inhabitants from their own land by killing all the men, killing ALL the women who aren't virgins, killing all the children, killing all the babies, but keeping for themselves women who are virgins?
Judging from your description, the Masai evils are not even worth comparing to the evils of the Old Testament...

I'm sorry. My point was to show that morals are relative to the system on which they are based. Every lifestyle, codified or not, has morals. I was not trying to compare. I'm still waiting for a reference to "keep the virgins and kill the others", but I haven't seen it.

The actions of the Masai warrior is worse because it is being evaluated by my morals. Simple. In the case of the Israelite men driving the inhabitants out of the land and the associated killing, it was an act of war. If you want to declare all acts of war as immoral, that is up to you. As far as the killing of innocent women and children in war, that is only regarded as immoral by a few countries in the informed, modern world.

What if you were an alien minding your own business, in YOUR own house and Israelite invaders came to kill you, your wife and take your daughter(s)? Would you have fought back against the Israelites or would you have invited them to have their way?

It's highly hypocritical of Christians to point out the injustices of other cultures, while ignoring their own injustices that are often many times worse.

Let me make this abundantly clear: I will fight to the death to protect my family. I have no problem using deadly force to protect mine ... and yours. I am from a family of warriors in this country at least as far back as WWI and through Desert Storm. I have friends and loved ones deployed all around the world right now, who relate to me stories of point-blank staredowns with innocent-looking assassins that they had to kill.

Atrocities happen in war. That's part of what makes it war. It's not Risk, Stratego, Chess, or a video game. In war real people - both warrior and the innocent - die. I get that.

 

[JayRob]

I'm sorry. My point was to show that morals are relative to the system on which they are based. Every lifestyle, codified or not, has morals. I was not trying to compare. I'm still waiting for a reference to "keep the virgins and kill the others", but I haven't seen it.

I've posted the verses several time, however you refuse to accept the fact that the OT god authorized these acts through Moses. He NEVER once corrected his people for these evils.

"They waged war as god had commanded them and killed every male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. 'So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse and kill every little boy, but keep the virgin girls for yourself. Divide them up evenly.'" Num. 31:7, 14

The actions of the Masai warrior is worse because it is being evaluated by my morals. Simple. In the case of the Israelite men driving the inhabitants out of the land and the associated killing, it was an act of war. If you want to declare all acts of war as immoral, that is up to you. As far as the killing of innocent women and children in war, that is only regarded as immoral by a few countries in the informed, modern world.

That's not true in most of the biblical cases. In most of the cases, the Israelites were the aggressors. In most cases, the Israelite god ordered the death of women, children and babies.

Let me make this abundantly clear: I will fight to the death to protect my family. I have no problem using deadly force to protect mine ... and yours. I am from a family of warriors in this country at least as far back as WWI and through Desert Storm. I have friends and loved ones deployed all around the world right now, who relate to me stories of point-blank staredowns with innocent-looking assassins that they had to kill.

Atrocities happen in war. That's part of what makes it war. It's not Risk, Stratego, Chess, or a video game. In war real people - both warrior and the innocent - die. I get that.

Nice try at trying to avoid answering the question directly. An act of a "just" war requires that the attacker FIRST be attacked. The Israelites were clearly the aggressors, so for you to simply minimize the situation to calling it a mere "act of war", without saying why they were attacking these peoples is dishonest and deceptive.
This wasn't an act of war, it was an act of genocide, thievery murder and coveteousness.

So again I ask, "if you were an alien, minding your own business, in YOUR own house and Israelite invaders came to kill you, your wife and take your daughter(s), would you have fought back against the Israelites or would you have invited them to have their way?

Trying to get Christians to objectively admit that their Old Testament god clearly ordered genocide of innocent peoples, women, children and babies is more difficult than pulling teeth. Some will do anything to avoid being honest about the many atrocities brought on by their so-called "loving" god.