[net.religion] Not Pharaoh again!

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (01/11/84)

In responding to Tim Maroney, I have deleted those paragraphs that do not
pertain to the discussion at hand.  The discussion of methods of argument,
tricks of sophistry and personal attacks is not why I am responding.  If my
articles contain factual errors, I am sure that these will be pointed out.
In "steering" this argument, I am attempting to reach the heart of a
particular thought and give a Christian response to it.  If Tim believes that
this "steering" is leading away from his main point (as he correctly
demonstrates in his first paragraph below), then I welcome the correction.
But I see nothing wrong in taking a "wide-angle" view of Christianity;  it
keeps me from taking things out of context.

> First, it is obvious that this is completely off the point.  The statement
> about the hardening of the heart in my article is in a "particularly"
> clause.  As most English speakers know, this means that it is not of central
> value to the argument, but only adds force.  If it is removed, the argument
> still stands by itself.  Therefore, even if David Norris does manage to
> prove that Yahweh didn't cause the hardening, the point that affair was
> carried out in an unacceptably cruel fashion still stands.

For a moment, then, let us forget about the hardening bit.  That the affair
was carried out in a cruel fashion I find difficult to accept.  Moses asked
to have his people let go.  The plagues did not immediately start as anything
that can be called cruel.  The undrinkable condition of the Nile lasted only
seven days, and can't be considered much more than a warning.  The second
plague was only a bunch of frogs, which was probably an unbearable nuisance.
And the last plague was declared by Pharaoh himself (discussed later).

> Second, Dave's assertion about the Biblical account is false.  In fact, I
> have found seven places in which it mentions that the hardening is a
> deliberate act of Yahweh.  These are all in Exodus, of course, so I'll just
> give the numbers: 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10.  These verses
> are easily verifiable by the reader, and form a complete disproof of David's
> assertion.

I thought this was off the point?  Nevertheless:

My article to Tim made reference to an earlier article, which perhaps Tim
did not recieve; it answered Tim's response here almost to the verse.  For
his benefit, I will repeat it.

Three Hebrew words are used in 7:3, 7:13, 7:14, 7:22, 8:15, 8:19, 8:32, 9:12,
10:1, 10:20, 10:27, et al:  "Hazaq" (to be or make strong), "Kabed" (to be or
make heavy, slow to move), and "Qasha" (to harden).  The usual translations
usually obscure when God hardened Pharaoh's heart and when he hardened his own
heart.  "Qasha" is used only in 7:3.  This does not imply any sort of divine
intervention; it may imply non-intervention, allowing the principles and
character of human nature to take their course.  This is sort of like allowing
the milk on the counter to go bad.  

> By the way, the "gross error" that he is referring to is the typographical
> error I made in referring to Mat. 25:35 as 26:35.

Forgive me, but I can't provide a response if the scriptural references are
incorrect.  If I can return to the original argument, I might again say that
the verse was taken out of context.  The lake of fire was not prepared for
men, but for the devil and his angels (Rev. 20:10).  Men do not inherit
eternal fire, but go there by refusing God's grace.

A response to this might be that I am avoiding the issue again; that God is
guilty of that which he punishes men for.  I don't think that is true; as I
have said, men do not go to hell because they did not feed the hungry.  Men
go to heaven or Hell on the basis of their decision to accept or reject God's
offer of grace.  Thus, for God to be guilty of that which he "condemns" man,
he must reject His own offer of grace, which of course makes little sense. 

> ..................................Pharoah was NOT beyond hope.  In fact, he
> actually recanted, completely willing to let the tribes of Israel leave
> Egypt, and Yahweh then hardened his heart, forcing the remaining plagues to
> be used!  If Yahweh had simply not performed the actions of Ex. 10:20, the
> Israelites would likely have been freed without fuss.  Pharoah says in Ex.
> 10:16-17, "I have sinned against Yahweh your God, and against yourselves
> [Moses and Aaron].  Forgive my sin, I implore you, this once, and entreat
> Yahweh your God just to rid me of this deadly plague."  It is clear that
> Pharoah is repentant, ready to bargain.  But in Ex. 10:20, Yahweh himself
> hardens Pharoah's heart, meaning that the darkness and the killing of the
> first-born must proceed.

The locust plague, in Exodus 10:1-20, is the eighth plague.  But to get a true
idea of the true feelings of Pharaoh, we must examine verses 8-11.  There we
see that Pharaoh's answer was at first cynical: "May the Lord be with you if
ever I let you go."  He hoped, suggests the IB, "that the divine protection on
the journey" might be "as non-existent as his permit to go."  Then he accused
them "You have some evil purpose" (RJV).  In this light, I don't think we can
say that Pharaoh was completely willing to let the Jews go.

Pharaoh's last resort, of chasing the Jews across the desert, even AFTER the
plagues, demonstrates that perhaps he was beyond hope.  Even after all this,
his evil nature would not allow the Israelites to go "unpunished".

> ......................  Why?  Ex. 11:9 has Yahweh saying "Pharoah will not
> listen to you; so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt."
> This hardly seems sufficient motivation for wholesale slaughter such as that
> of Ex. 12:29, in which "Yahweh struck down all the first-born in the land of
> Egypt: the first-born of Pharoah, heir to his throne, the first-born of the
> prisoner in his dungeon, and the first-born of all the cattle."  All those
> children and adults killed, for apparently the same reason that would lead
> one of us today to set off fireworks.  This is immorality, pure and simple.

Pharaoh almost capitulates in 10:24.  But he asks that the flocks and cattle
stay in Egypt (possibly to ensure the return of the Jews?).  But to let the
whole nation go, with no assurance that they would return, was to much for
Pharaoh.  He terminated not only this interview but all further interviews,
and by his own mouth decreed the ninth and most horrible plague; the 
destruction of the firstborn.  The plagues were brought about by Pharaoh
himself, and finally ordered by Pharaoh himself. 

> I would like to thank both David Norris and Karl Kleinpaste for helping me
> to understand the Plagues.  You may rest assured that the next version of
> the essay "Even If I DID Believe ..." will contain a longer and far more
> condemnatory treatment of the killing of the first-born, thanks to you.

This is the only non-argumentative paragraph from Tim I have included, 
because I wish to ask a question:  what is its purpose, other than an attempt
to stir hatred and jealousy?  Are you *really* thanking us?  Are you really
allowing make Karl and me to "rest assured"?   

	-- David Norris
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david

bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (01/11/84)

Irrespective of the details and the particular Biblical quotes involved,
tim's major point is worthy of debate:  The deity described in the old
testament is definitely given to punishing whole peoples (the Egyptians,
the Midianites) for the perceived transgressions of the few.  Were *all*
of the Egyptian first-born and their parents somehow guilty of failing to
free the Hebrews?  Were *all* of the Midianites (excepting, of course,
the virgin women) guilty of corrupting the Hebrews?  I somehow doubt it.

(Incidentally, if you think polluting the Nile isn't cruel try going 
without water for seven days -- there was no Pharoes WaterWorks in those
days.  The effects on crops and livestock, not to mention humans, would
have been long term and disastrous.)

The problem with adopting the position of Biblical inerrancy is that you
may be putting words and actions in G-d's mouth, so to speak.  Certainly
this is a form of blasphemy.  An historically justified, and simpler,
explanation for the events that are being discussed here is that the
Biblical narratives, like the Homeric narratives, are men's interpretation
of natural and social events imputing that which is unexplainable or
unjustifiable to the Deity.  Prove to me that the Bible is completely
inerrant, however, and I will happily and voluntarily join tim in line.

If indeed the Diety is given to punishing whole peoples for the sins of
some, and this country is on the road to perdition as some believe,
then I will also expect to find Dave Norris in line behind me...
-- 

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					(decvax!duke!unc!bch)