This arguement only works if you refuse to read the other verses. Yes - there are multiple times when God hardened Pharoahs heart according to the texts. But Pharoah DID refuse on his own....

Exodus 7:13 And Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't do this one.

Exodus 7:22 Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

God didn't harden his heart this time either.

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.

3rd refusal without God doing it.

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.

Now we are up to 4 - and still this is all by free will.

Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.

5 times now this guy has made his own decision to not allow the Israelites to go.

Exodus 9: 34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.

There you have it - 6 times Pharoah decided on his own that he would sin against God.

Remember Exodus 4:22,23 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

The very first time that Pharoah was faced with the decision of allowing the exodus or not - he refused on his own free will. This is after being told the ultimate repercussions of what would happen. If he refused, his firstborn would die. He refused. At that point the die was cast - his actions had set in motion an outcome. His refusal to submit to the Lord was the reason for the plagues. Yes, God hardened his heart for the last few plagues. But if you take the whole thing together you can see that its a cause and effect. As I said, going by the Biblical standard of God, the Lord isn't one to say "this will happen if you don't do what I say" and then take the slap in the face and not react as He stated He would.

Now I don't know the mind of God. But I would say that given the full text, had Pharoah only refused the first time and then backed off after the first plague, there may have been only the one and then his firstborn would have died. Yet he continually CHOSE to refuse the word of God, he would say he was sorry, give his ok, then rescind it. Thus the Lord punished him repeatedly.

Does it? Or does it make Him a Diety of His word?

Again, while I can't know the mind of God, I will point out that the actions taken - great plagues that force the hand of the most powerful ruler in the world at the time, especially when some are aimed directly at cutting down the ruler's stature (see plague 9), while accomplishing the goal of getting the Israelites free, is a pretty good show of power to reinforce the beliefs of one's people. Mere supposition, but definitely supported by Exodus 4 and onward. That is a motive that humans can understand....

With it explained a bit, hopefully those concerns are remedied.

Thats a whole other discussion and one that probably should be dealt with seperately.

Exactly - they DO mutate quite often - so why after a supposed 32000 years did this one suddenly do so instead of much earlier? As for the suggestions - yes I have heard that too but medically its alot more likely to have been contaminated blood. Even if it was the other - thats been going on in the Congo area for generations too.... (Eww!)

Yep, but its rather odd that this one continues to be one of the most resistant in human history.

Well, we differ on at least part of that. I do think that "going out of the box" is necessary at times. However, the scientific method requires a hypothesis - a construct, into which you plug data to see if it fits. If the data doesn't fit, the hypothesis is flawed and you come up with another one. Taking away the construct leaves you nothing to plug the data into....

A theory has to stand or fail based on the data.

Unfortunately discussion is futile were there is dogma and religion is all about dogma.

CaptainHaplo demonstrates that he is an articulate and respectful defender of his faith but still he is steeped religious beliefs that tend to baffle those of us for whom the very idea of a god is utter nonsense.

On the other hand, non-believers dogma is generally every bit as strong but often rooted more in the empirical than the mythical. This is not necessarily "better" in any particular way nor does it follow that the lack of religious faith equates to a lack of empathy, ethics or morals.

One can be spiritual and be entirely "good" within societal norms without god or religion.

Two believer's might easily discuss how many angels might dance on the head of a pin because both believe that there are such a thing as angels and the bible is silent on angel-pin load capacity.

Two non-believer's could find common ground for discussion of human evolution for example, on scientific and archaeological grounds without invoking any cultural creation mythology at all.

A believer and an atheist trying to talk about either of the above topics would likely find their own dogmatic beliefs prevent any real acceptance for the arguments of the other. Thus dialog breaks down and consensus seldom is achieved.

This thread has been rare for the subject matter since has not really degenerated into the usual acrimonious theist vs.heathen personal attacks and hyperbole.

For those who have any God in your lives, go with Him and enjoy but don't think that you have a monopoly on morality because of it. For me any god is less real than say, Bugs Bunny, who at least taught me to appreciate classical music.

As I said in my post at the bottom of the previous page, you are wrong. I mentioned that God tells of the plan well beforehand, but I didn't think it was necessary to quote it, since I thought you would not try and hold unto your imaginary line that Pharao crossed.

You are either intentionally dishonest, or you don't know your own Bible.

Seeing at which point you chose to quote the text marked in red, I'm afraid would point to the first option. Because let's look at what it says in Exodus 4, Verse 21, the verse JUST BEFORE you decided to start the quote:

--------------

21 And the LORD said to Moses, ***8220;When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ***8216;Thus says the LORD: ***8220;Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.***8221;***8217;***8221;

---------------

This was BEFORE Moses even returned to Egypt, BEFORE any of the plagues. Now, CaptainHaplo, why would you leave that out? Maybe because it clearly shows that what happened was a PLANNED DEMONSTRATION OF POWER.

And your defense here is pointless anyway, since even if God gave shots across the bow, he still murdered innocent baby children in the end as well as order the genocide on other tribes in other chapters.

edit: Somehow editing the post fupped the " or ', sorry about that.

Not realy....

It could be demonstration of stubborns of people on the top with absolute power who face situation like this.
In some cases it can be predicted.
you can easily find it even in modern history.
Note that the plagues had been progressive in strength...

You guys can debate this as long and as respectfully as you want, what it comes down to by the end of the day, is this:
http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/,12...ti_Monster.jpg
Either you consider this ^ to be a valid option in the debate about reason versus relgion, or you don't.

If you do, then the funniest speculations and the greatest absurdities, the wildest speculations and the vaguest hear-say will claim equal status to conclusions by logic or theorems born by reasonable thought or scientific methodology. ANYTHING GOES, and all intellectual argument, all empiry, all intelligenjt reason will be compromised, forever, by just these words: "But you cannot prove that the flying spagetthi monster does not exist!"

Reaosn and relgious believing are mutually exclusive by nature. Any attempt to question this serves only one purpose: to give relgion a better name again by compromsing the standards of reason and logic, empiry and evidence. Open the can of worms just a little bit - and you already have opened it completely.

A responisble sacientiist will not claim absolute, ultimate validity or truth for a THEORY. A theory, even a paradigm, always has temporay validity only. I explained that a hundred times in past threads, it seems. It is relgions claiming to know absolute, eternal truths whose origin said religions are in themselves - and denying the need of proving these claims, never needing to question them - but accusing non-believers to be disrespectful, intolerant and claiming to know it all.

I do not know it all, and I will never claim theories have eternal valdity. But what I do know is how to differ an empirically well-founded theory from corrupted logic and merely arbitrary speculation. Offer the latter just your little finger to show how polite and understanding and open-minded you are - and see how it takes your hand, your arm, and then the rest of youself.

@ MH:
So you're saying that "I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART" is the same thing as "He will harden his heart out of stubborness"??

And the plagues being progressive in strength has no bearing whatsoever on whether the event was completely preplanned or not.
As a matter of fact, some fake "warning shots", all the time saying "thus speaks the Lord! Let my people go or I will..." - with an opponent who has been rendered unable to move from his position - will be an even better demonstration of power than a freak one time event. It actually makes sense from the perspective of a homicidal maniac, too.

stubbornness....refusal to face defeat/reality so on....
Bible is not DVD player manual...sometimes this creates lots of unwanted problems lol

Besides ....god is all knowing omnipotent and so on...
It does not mean that he wants exercise this power all the time.
People have free will therefore they are judged for their life.
Otherwise what would be the point.

If one takes the bible literally, then one must assume God ordained evil.
When a being is all powerful, he must accept responsibility for his creation.
It's obvious God made creatures as failed beings, maybe that's because only God can be perfect.

God knew Satan would fall before he made him, but made him anyway, plus Satan was made with emotions of jealousy, etc. But here's the point, when Satan fell God could've destroyed him then, placed him on another planet or at least taken away his power, but he didn't, instead he placed him on the same planet with man power intact.

Some say the fall happened to allowed freewill through knowledge, but strange Adam and Eve had freewill and knowledge before the fall. They were told not to eat and chose not to until Satan came along. So now we have Satan tempting them, telling them they could be like God. Before Eve ate she saw the fruit was good, we see in her feelings of jealousy, selfishness, a complete array of bad behavior before she ate.

If Satan was so smart why didn't he tell her to eat from the tree of life first, that would've spolied God's plan or could God have later changed that and taken away that power, meaning it was never a real tree of life.

Why put a tree in the garden with Satan with your man creation to start with?

It appears to be the biggest setup for failure, God putting all the pieces in place for man to fall. The bible says when they ate they would die, but that changed later to all mankind was doomed to eternal hell just from being born.

Many believe God intended a perfect garden for perfect man, but man ruined it, so God came up with a plan B. Seems we have God always having to react to man or Satan with a plan B. If man or Satan can mess up God's perfect plans how can one assume heaven is really safe, why couldn't man or Satan mess that perfect plan up?

Many say God cannot have sin around or near him, thus he exiles sin away from him, but I thought God was in all places at all times. If eternal hell is true, wouldn't God also be in there listening to all the screams for eternity?

Myself I believe Gen. is another poetic rendering of the Hebrews explaining how they viewed the beginning, most tribes and peoples around the word had their own story. Gen. appears almost exact to many previous beginning stories that already existed before it was written in about 1500bc.

Doe's it contain truths, sure, it's possible, but taken literally a host of problems arise and conflict with christian doctrine and it seems the only way they can explain it is..."God can do what he wants."

Someone posted that God answers starving kids prayers by killing them so they don't have to be hungry anymore...wow, course they failed to mention they suffer in severe pain often for months. I did missions to Africa in the 90's, I saw 1000's of African converts to christianity that still starved, had no water, meds, shelter, etc...but in America we teach God "will meet all our needs," does this not apply to christians in poor nations that have no social programs or churches enough to care? Seems to me people today pray for God to do something so they don't have to do a thing.

Still, in the end, if you're God and you know the outcome before it happens and that the majority of your creation will be tortured toast and you create anyway....sounds more like the actions of carnal man to me, such as what Hitler would do. Myself, I love people too much and would never want 80% to suffer so a few would bow down and worship me., but I course don't believe God is like that.

Why not God just showing himself in a loving manner to all people and explain what he wants, instead of being God to just the Hebrews and using disasters to make others to change. I imagine just as God hardened hearts, he could also soften them. God could've gone directly to all the pharaohs and speak to them as he did Moses. Stange, why would God only pick one type of people to display himself.

Still, all mankind around the earth did the same thing, God was for them and against others and only they had proper access to God. To each peoples they were the "firstborn" of God, his chosen ones...I would think a loving God would simply chose all people without bias.

Exactly.

Also: You need to watch this, it is right to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...39/wKtuk0ZpnbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco&NR=1

I posted some similar links in my posting on the bottom of page 2.

God probably is capitalist....sort of...lol
People need this dance between good and evil greed and compassion to get somewhere to progress and develop.
To appreciate what we have got.

As for Hebrews/Jews(the chosen people) the classic question is why we deserve this ****.

But God did it at least once, and that's enough to leave the question open. On the other hand it's a matter of belief that it even happened anyway, so I'll let it go for now. That said, why does he insist on killing the son for the father's sins?

Depending on your belief, it could be taken either way, which is why I used the phrase "seems to".

Not really, from a technical standpoint, but from the point of view of the believer it should be enough.

I agree, but I will say now that that is the real point at the root of all such questionings.

All true, and a good question. That said, just because we don't know why it happened now doesn't mean that there was a reason. Sometimes things just happen. Were the people killed in the explosion of Krakatoa evil and punished by God? No one that I know of has suggested that, so I'll pose the relevant parallel: Were Sodom and Gomorrah all evil and punished by God, or was the story written by someone desperately searching for answers as to why two entire cities were wiped out by some natural disaster? The answer to that question is unknown and apparently unknowable. The difference is between those who take the story verbatim and those who don't. I used to be among the former, now I number myself with the latter. People give me grief when I say "I don't know anything", but the fact is that I no longer believe that anyone has the answers to these questions.

True, but until a definitive answer is actually known, "odd" is all it is.


A theory is usually proferred after some evidence points in that direction, not before. If the construct is believed beforehand, and is the basis for the theory rather than the other way around, it ceases to be science, if it ever was to start with.

Many theories can be said, but no one can complain that it has been for some text commentaries, so Gott sei Dank!

Work has me busy - but I have this on the radar to post at length again.

Many people confuse between expression of faith and knowledge.

"God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is an expression of faith. it can only be understood by people who share the faith. And that statement even stemming from faith is not necessarily baseless as the person saying it is saying it out of whatever personal knowledge he had of God.

Ultimately the person who said "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" has made the realization that God ultimately has authority over all including people's attitude. He is saying that God ultimately has everything under His control/rule.

To those people reading it especially ones without faith nor understanding of the person who said it will find it absurd and even repelling or offensive.






PS:It may even be an expression of knowledge but one which most of us never understand thus the controversy. Reading the scripture is not as simple as reading any book. often a sentence carries double meaning. What is literal and implied or the meaning evade people understanding despite the obvious to some. Many without faith will find so many writings to be weird and absurd.

A few examples,

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full (abundant life)." - John 10:10, yet too many Christians are poor.
" I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry***8230; and never go thirsty." - John 6:35, yet Christians still go thristy
And every one that liveth and believeth in me shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? John 11:26 RHE, yet Christians die like others. Most Christians think however this means they will have an afterlife immediately. But if you read carefully it doean't mean that.

Complicating the understanding is there are so many different texts of the same scriptures. The Christians have mixed 'world of the dead' with hell for example. This compounds the problems of misunderstanding the scriptures....badly. And it shows that those who compiled them in so many different version of interpretations DO NOT have the knowledge of God. They were clueless.