Now I'm watching the special on Exodus.
Right now they're making extreme leaps of logic; yes, they admit, the only mention of the Hebrews or Israel anywhere is on one tablet, though they don't realize that someone else might have been in Israel before the Hebrews got there. But it's mentioned, they say! Obviously great evidence. Now they want us to believe that if we can find the cities the Bible says the slaves built, it'll be evidence of it. Not like they could have stuck it in there after they knew it existed, course not. What the fuck? Now their names are jumping around like crazy. They say that Moses means to draw out in Hebrew, and he was named that because he was drawn out of the water, and it specifically said that in the story, but they're saying it's an Egyptian name meaning "son of". Rameses, for example, would be Ra-moses, son of Ra, so he supposedly got rid of the first part when he converted to Judaism. Except, you know, the story explicitly contradicts that as a reason for him being named Moses!
Okay, now they're saying that a volcanic vent caused the burning bush. Wouldn't the bush have been set on fire way before Moses got there? Yknow, since it was right next to a volcanic vent for years? And why haven't you addressed the idiotic idea of God speaking to him via angel in a burning bush?
Oooo, explaining the plagues! This should be fun. Ah, a red tide. Now the frogs, who come out to avoid it. Then the gnats, who come for.... no reason at all? The flies, called stable flies, also came for no reason at all. You at least could have tried explaining it by saying "hey, frog corpses!" Then the flies give all the animals blue tongue. Boils are also from the stable flies. Okay, hailstorms happen sometimes. And then they cause locusts? Great. And the locusts cause a sandstorm to last 3 days instead of 1 or 2, because they aren't common or anything like they just said they would be, and also completely unremarkable, now are they? Wait, why didn't they mention that the hail killed the already dead animals? And what about the firstborn beasts of the 10th plague? Okay, so food buried underground caused it? How? Okay, fungus. Okay, so only the top layer is infected, as a wild guess, but ingesting or even inhaling it kills someone. Doesn't explain first born children. Ah, but tradition does! Eldest son gets double portion first, same for animals. I think, though, they're gonna eat all the damn food themselves instead of giving it to the animals, since they're low on it. Your theory sucks balls. Not only that, but they're still gonna inhale the goddamn plague, you numbskulls. Ooo, the reason they didn't kill the Hebrews is because they lived in shantytowns? Do they have 0 crops there or something? They can't. Because they had uncontaminated food. And that means they have to have had crops. Which means that the locusts would have attacked them. Idiots. So the question now is which way did they go? I would have thought to the Red FSMdamn Sea. Oh great, now we need the Bible as the sole evidence. No evidence at all, then. Ooo, tradition for the crossing it wrong. They crossed it at the Gulf of Aqaba. Wait, that isn't part of the Red Sea, is it? I thought the entire Red Sea was on the left side of the peninsula! Oh, they're headed to Midian aka Saudi Arabia. Where Mt. Sinai is. Instead of the Sinai Peninsula. Yeah, that makes buttloads of sense. And the parting of the goddamn Red Sea actually happened at just the right time? All this shit has ridiculous timing, but still. Right when Moses reaches out his damn hand? The sea parting was fucking WIND-INDUCED? Give me a break. An underwater land bridge? Show me some evidence one actually exists. Okay, you got a vacuum cleaner to part a fake sea over a fake land bridge. Oh well, I won't bother criticizing that one. Ah, they found the ridge right where the Bible says it is? You disagree on the location the Bible is referring to, there isn't a place where the Bible indisputably says it is. Wait, there aren't any bridges, and their only justification is that it was different before? Ah, so they're saying that because a city isn't a port, the water receded at some point, and the modern shoreline was a ridge. Or it just didn't form until the water receded. I opt for the latter. Okay, your scale experiment with a couple boats and a swamp drew back a rather flat body of water a few feet. While tee wind was moving at 100 miles and hours. Was there a fucking hurricane, just all blowing east? Idiots, it coming back onto the land bridge wouldn't be walls of water crashing down, it would just be "hey, is this bridge disappearing? Oh shit." I'm too lazy to watch the part where they try to locate Mt. Sinai.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Now I'm watching the special on Exodus.