Exodus real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, talk about a blast from the past! What brought this thread back, anyway?

In the year that it’s been since I posted on this thread, I’ve learned of a book called “Making Senses out of Scripture”. It’s about the different styles and senses that the various books of Scripture were written in. I haven’t read it, but I know the author and his work, and he’s very, very good.

Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
Tom:
Knute, what it means is some of the stories are parables. Remember in the NT Jesus teaches us in parables (stories to make a point), when asked why, He says that is the way His Father teaches us. If the Father teaches us in parables we can be sure at least some of the OT is also in parables. So, is the Gn story of creation “factual” or a parable? Does it really matter? If we’re spending our time trying to determine if it’s an accurate historical account or a parable, we’re missing the whole point. Does it matter if there really was a “prodigal son” or not? No, it’s not the point of the story.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to indicate the stories in Genesis are parables. That is just an anachronistic reading of thr text. They are not written as modern history is, but they are certainly not written as parables. The literary style is not even close parabolic.

It matters greatly because if there was no first Adam there was no need for a second Adam. Plu,. why the first 11 chapters only? Why should we believe Abraham was real?

Mel
 
From what I have read, it is very possible that there was a slave revolt within Egypt, and that a small minority of Hebrews left in an exodus to join the Hebrew people that already resided within Canaan. A successful slave revolt would have been huge news in ancient times, and provided the foundation for the Exodus myth as portrayed in the bible.
  • remember, a myth is not a fairy tale, it is not false. A mythical story is more like a nutshell in which a valuable truth is contained. Myths express ahistorical realities.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
From what I have read, it is very possible that there was a slave revolt within Egypt, and that a small minority of Hebrews left in an exodus to join the Hebrew people that already resided within Canaan. A successful slave revolt would have been huge news in ancient times, and provided the foundation for the Exodus myth as portrayed in the bible.
  • remember, a myth is not a fairy tale, it is not false. A mythical story is more like a nutshell in which a valuable truth is contained. Myths express ahistorical realities.
Click to expand...
The problem of course is that this completely contradicts the very detailed account of events in Exodus of how the Hebrews entered Canaan. Why is your theory more plausible than the Exodus account? Why assume, like a skeptic, that it did not happen as recorded? Simply because you read a skeptics opinion and obviously did not consult non-skeptical scholarship for balance. Or do you have another record of the events we don’t know about?

The myth would not express any reality because it would contain contradictions and outright lies. That is to say, your idea of “true myth” makes absolutely no sense and has no historical or literary support beyond a handful of modern skeptic “scholars”. If your theory is true then the Bible is inherently unrealiable and and false. If Exodus contains lies it is safe to assume the Gospels do too. Thankfully, this is not the case.

Mel
 
40.png
Peace-bwu:
ahhh… apparently this site is a 7th day adventist thing! I am wondering if any of this archaeology is real why there have not been more reliable studies done? The wheel at the bottom of the ocean looks like someone just put it there before the picture was taken. I think part of the story that shows where the sea was parted is intersting, but beyond that I simply don’t have confidence in what I read at this site.
Click to expand...
Peace-bwu:

I’ve heard Michael Medved and Dennis Pragger interview a couple of other people (one was a Swedish Physicist) who came to the same conclusion as this guy.

Don’t worry about the guy - Worry about what he says, and ask yourself if it’s plausable given the fact that Orthodox Jews believe the story happened as written.

The structure in the Red Sea does exist as he said, and, if the water were goine, it would be passable even in a wheelchair. It’s the only place where that can be said…

I hope this clarifies things.

in Christ, Michael
 
mark a:
I’ve read that Genesis is possibly not a factual book and that the Church does not require us to believe it is factual.

How about Exodus? I’ve read that there is no archeological evidence of it, and that there are only a few references to Jews in all known Egyptian writings.

Would this lessen the importance of passover and successive beliefs?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I watched a documentary show on The Exodus called “The Exodus Revealed”. In the video, archaeologists uncover the location of the crossing of the Red Sea and the location of Mt. Sinai and their discoveries were not in the traditional locations that have no archaeological basis. Check out these websites:

Red Sea Crossing and more Exodus archaeology
I bought the DVD at “The Exodus Revealed” DVD

Hope this helps.
 
I would like to put in my “two cents worth”, or rather quite a few cents worth, on this topic. I think the persons who discuss the middle road approach are the most correct, that is, that the major whole of the OT history, including the major developments discussed in Genesis and Exodus, are true in some sense. Here, we would avoid the extremes of total literalism (i.e. extreme Fundamentalists), understanding that Scripture is only infallible in teaching us what is necessary for our Salvation (which would include those *major *developments of Salvation History that are the essential steps in God’s Plan for the Redemption of the human race), and total allegory (i.e., liberal Modernists), which would reduce the Scriptures to mere fictitious stories meant to teach us moral or theological lessons but which have no real or significant connection to actual history.

At this time in the doctrinal development of the Church, when discussing Salvation History from the standpoint of dogma, only events of the very beginning (i.e., Creation and Fall), of the essential points of Christ’s life in His First Coming (i.e., as the Creeds specify), and of the very end of the world (i.e., the Second Coming, the General Judgement, the General Resurrection, and the New Creation) have been infallibly defined.

----------------(continued next post)------------------------------------
 
------------------(continued from previous post)----------------------------------

However, this does leave us with a very pertinent and relevant question, especially in light of the modern extremes above, which is, What about the intermediary histories? That is, ***What must we ***absolutely get from the Salvation History:

A. Between the Fall and the First Coming of Christ, and

B. Between the First and Second Comings of Christ?

Well, whereas I don’t believe these things have been infallibly defined at this current time, it seems, nevertheless, that, in the case of A.**, the Church, through the Easter Vigil Liturgy of the Word and the associated introductory sections of the Catechism on the development of God’s Revelation (see here), teaches generally that the following four major Redemptive Actions of God (that occur between the Fall and First Coming of Christ) are to be understood, in some sense, as true history, remembering that some of them may be described in Scripture in a figurative manner:

  1. *]The Flood and Covenant with Noah
    *]The Confounding of Languages and Covenant with Abraham
    *]The Exodus and Establishment of the Law through Moses
    *]The Restoration of the Jews to the Old Covenant (through and following the Babylonian Exile)

    Again, these developments are corroborated by the Easter Vigil Liturgy, which contains six primary sets of texts, the first being the Creation, the next four as above, and the sixth concerning Christ’s Resurrection (elaborated both by an NT Epistle and, of course, the particular Gospel reading).

    When we look at these redemptive epochs, which, from the Flood to the First Coming of Christ, inclusive, comprise five, we see that they clearly imply, each respectively, a necessary precedent stage of sinful resistance. That is, the Flood makes no sense except that there was a preceding general state of wickedness, the Exodus makes no sense except that the Jews were initially in slavery, etc., etc. Hence, from this context, we infer a simple pattern from, at a bare minimum the OT history, which is to say that it constitutes five primary developments, each consisting first of the “darkness” of a major sinful resistance to God or His Plan followed by the “light” of its associated major Redemption.

    ----------------(continued next post)------------------------------------
 
------------------(continued from previous post)----------------------------------

In light of this, we can ask whether such a pattern continues into the age of the Church? Well, incidentally this brings us to B. above, that is, What is the essential history that the Church will define between the First and Second Comings of Christ? It seems that the above OT pattern continues in some sense, but it is not fully settled. What seems to be more or less settled is the recognition of what occurs in the beginning and the ***end ***of Church history. The middle, if any, is what is debated.

Specifically, when speaking of the beginning of Church history, it seems that orthodox Catholic Bible scholars would recognize that the prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7 are fulfilled, on one level, with the severe persecutions of Christians by the pagan Roman Empire and the eventual triumph of the Church over paganism. As far as the ***end ***of Church history goes, the Church generally teaches that the following four events occur toward the very end:

  1. *]The Full Number of Gentiles enter the Church
    *]The Full Number of Jews enter the Church
    *]The Great Apostasy and Antichrist and Great Tribulation
    *]The Second Coming and New Creation (which is already dogma, as indicated above)

    What, then, about the middle? Again, that’s debated. The pessimists, otherwise known as exclusive amillers, believe that the first conversion of the world and the Second Coming/New Creation are the only great Redemptive actions of God in the Church Age, that is, that the first conversion of the world and the fullness of the Gentiles are all part of the same major Redemptive action, with no intervening evil stage, and thus making the Church Age contain only two major redemptive actions of God. The optimists, on the other hand, otherwise known as postmillers, believe that the first conversion of the world and the fullness of the Gentiles are actually two distinct major Redemptive epochs, in between which lies an intermediate (or minor, as it is referred to) apostasy and tribulation, thus making for a total of three major redemptive actions of God in the Church Age.

    ----------------(continued next post)------------------------------------
 
------------------(continued from previous post)----------------------------------

So, if we enumerate the total number of Redemptive epochs in Salvation History, we see from above that from the Flood to the First Coming of Christ, inclusive, there are five stages, and, since the amill position gives two epochs for the Church age and postmill gives, on the other hand, three epochs, we have that there will either be seven or eight total Redemptive actions, depending on whether you are amill or postmill, respectively.

Interestingly enough, we can ask where we have seen the numbers seven and eight, and the metaphor of darkness followed by light? Of course, the metaphor is immediate in the seven days of Creation, which, incidentally, are extended to eight in Catholic doctrine (see the CCC on the Sabbath) and which also contain the basic metaphor: darkness followed by light (“evening came and morning followed, the first day…. evening came and morning followed, the second day…., etc.”)

The Beast, on the other end of Scripture, possesses the same reality (see Rev. 17:1-11, especially 9-11): it has seven heads, which are extended to eight. Is this coincidence? I seriously doubt it because it already appears that this is part of the tradition of several Early Fathers, especially some of the earliest. There is a book by Fr. Ianuzzi that researches the question of the Millennium in Rev. 20 which is packed with quotes from several of the Early Fathers that precisely associates the eight days of Creation with the entire Redemptive work of God across the whole of Salvation history. One Father even enumerates them according the analysis above: “Five days have passed… (with the First Coming of Christ)…” which leaves three days for the Church. Again, this agrees with Rev. 17 itself on the beast, “five have fallen.”

The problem is, this tradition is either unknown or ignored because, according to Ianuzzi, several of these Fathers have falsely been accused of being chiliasts (as the Church has condemned chiliasm), whereas, in reality, again according to Iannuzi, it is highly probable that they were not chiliasts and understood themselves to be speaking somewhat metaphorically about the Millennium.

I think this is food for thought, but very few of the typical Catholics today who write books on the Apocalypse really explore these types of questions. They are too busy applying the Apocalypse to the initial times of the Church, which, while that is certainly valid, need not be the only meaning intended by God.

Also, it would seem that these considerations would provide the Church with a possible way to dogmatize the intermediate histories, as discussed above, that is, to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

Scott
 
BTW, in my signature, one can link to my blog that I am still working on which explores the question between seven or eight epochs, that is, between an exclusive amill and a postmill. I go with postmill, admitting amill as a secondary meaning, for reasons that are elaborated on in the essays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top