Ecological Damage in Blood Plague

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

---JAlw@aol.com wrote:

>

> 

> Bones:

> 

[snip complaints about hairsplitting]


>  Don't you have enough proof by now to simply assert that the whole

>  "blood-plagues-magicians" thing in the OT is a fable....a myth like

the Ark

>  story and so many others?  Why do you keep inventing ways that it

might

>  have, or perhaps could have happened this way or that?  If you want

to

>  believe that the water was only changed into blood for a minute, so

that the

>  magicians could do likewise with their enchantments for another

minute,

>  fine! There's nothing in the OT text to indicate that, that I know

of, and

>  you'll have to do that all over again when we get to the frogs,

too, I would

>  imagine.  I guess I just don't get where you are coming from.  You

seem to

>  be making things a lot more complicated, when I thought you wanted

to keep

>  them simple!

> 

> ===================

> Joe Alward:

> 

> What is the "KISS" principle?  

> 

> I do, indeed, think I do have enough evidence to suggest that the

plague

> stories are myth and fable.  However, my intent was not to convince

skeptics

> that a strong argument against the plagues could be made; that's

easy to do.

> What I have been trying to do is show skeptics that Farrell Till et

al are

> overstating their case when they categorically assert that a

"logistical

> impossibility" exists in the blood plague story.

> 

> The blood plague story is manifestly absurd, of course, but that

doesn't mean

> that a contradiction exists internally.  Till has assumed to be

true--for the

> sake of argument, of course--that Moses and Aaron converted the

waters to

> blood, but that it would have been impossible for the magicians to

have done

> the same thing.  However, I've shown that the context of the story

strongly

> indicates that the author obviously left out some important

information:  that

> Moses/Aaron reversed the conversion, then the magicians did the same

thing

> that they had done, converted the water, then converted it back.  


BRYCE
     You haven't shown that "the context indicates" missing
information.  The only evidence that there is anything missing is the
fact that the story, as told, leads to logical absurdities.  How does
the "context" show that your pet theory is any more justified than the
following possibilities?

     1)  Moses and Aaron turned the water into fish-killing red
Kool-Aid, giving the Nile the appearance of blood.  Then the magicians
turned the Kool-Aid into real blood with platelets, hemoglobin,
clotting factors, etc.

     2)  Moses and Aaron turned the water into blood, which was
immediately levitated into space, where it landed on Mars (giving Mars
its characteristic color).  The Nile quickly refilled when everyone in
Ethiopia flushed their toilets at the same time (toilets may seem
anachronistic, but they were temporarily and miraculously provided by
Yahweh), allowing the magicians to repeat the trick.  The second wave
of blood was levitated to Bryce Canyon, to provide color for some of
the loveliest rock formations in existence.  The Egyptians were given
thirty seconds after each transsubstantiation to dig for water along
the banks (after all, they didn't want the Bible to be wrong about
their activity).

     3)  Moses and Aaron turned the lower half of the Nile to blood,
leaving the upper half for the magicians (they could also have split
it via "near bank" and "far bank").  The Egyptians were spared death
by dehydration by miraculous intervention, and the predicted algal
blooms were killed off by the divinely guided fall of a cyanide-laced
meteor into the Mediterranean.

[snip]

JOE  

> On a final note:  what am I trying to do?  It's to create an archive

of

> arguments on both sides of the issue of errancy/inerrancy.  I'm

looking for

> the best each side can offer.  Whenever I suggest that an alleged

> contradiction could perhaps be harmonized this way or that, it's

because I

> don't think the inerrantists have done the best job they could have

with that

> particular defense; I want to publish the BEST defense before I show

the best

> skeptical criticism.


BRYCE
     Joe, I'll do you a favor and work under the (possibly erroneous)
assumption that you are sincere about this, and not just a Christian
troll.  I really don't believe you're ready to undertake such an
endeavor yet.  You haven't shown the ability to distinguish between
the "best" defenses and irrelevant quibbles.  You don't seem to
understand (in spite of umpteen repetitions) why your new "one minute
theory" is failing (besides the obvious fact that the Egyptians
wouldn't have had time to GET to the Nile, much less dig around its
banks).  I think you'd be doing yourself a favor by being more open to
advice. 

     Once more, there are no contextual clues to imply that there is
any missing information.  

==
Bryce Anderson
http://members.tripod.com/~Idafab/index.html

How can it be tourist season if we can't shoot them?



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: Ecological Damage in Blood Plague
• Next message: Ecological Damage in Blood Plague
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]